The 

MewCentury 

Bible    " 


g^-c^,  Jeremiah  & 
W53  Lamentations 


DwisioQ 

Section 


THE  NEW-CENTURY  BIBLE 

JEREMIAH 

AND 

LAMENTATIONS 


THE  NEW-CENTURY  BIBLE 

*GENESIS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 

*EXODUS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 

^LEVITICUS  AND  NUMBERS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  M.  A.,  D.D. 

*DEUTERONOMY  AND  JOSHUA,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  H.  Wheeler  Robinson, 

M.A. 
*JUDGES  AND  RUTH,  by  the  Rev.  G.  W.  Thatcher,  M.A.,  B.D. 
*I  AND  n  SAMUEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  M.A.,  D.D. 
*I  AND  II  KINGS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  Skinner,  D.D. 
«I  AND  II  CHRONICLES,  by  the  Rev.  W.  Harvey-Jellie,  M.A..  B.D. 
*EZRA,  NEHEMIAH,  and  ESTHER,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  T.  Witton  Davies, 

B.A.,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
*JOB,  by  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 

*PSALMS  (Vol.  I)  I  to  LXXII,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  Davison,  M.A.,  D.D. 
*P3ALMS  (Vol.  II)  LXXIII  TO  END,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  T.  Witton  Davies, 

B.A.,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
*PROVERBS,    ECCLESTASTES,    And     SONG    OF    SOLOMOxN,     by    the 

Rev.  Prof.  G.  Currie  I^Iartin,  iM.A.,  B.D. 
*ISAIAH  I-XXXIX,  by  the  Rev.  Owen  C.  Whitehouse,  M.A.,  D.D. 
*ISAIAH  XL-LXVI,  by  the  Rev.  Owen  C.  Whitehouse,  M.A  ,  D.D. 
*JEREMIAH  (Vol.  I),  by  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 

•JEREMIAH  (Vol.  II),  AND  LAMENTATIONS,  by  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake.  M.A. ,  D.D. 
*EZEKIEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.  F.  Lofthouse,  M.A. 
DANIEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  R.  H.  Charles,  D.D. 
*MIXOR  PROPHETS:  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos.  Obadiah,  Jonah,  Micah,  by  the 

Rev.  R.  F.  HORTON,  M.A.,  D.D. 
"MINOR  PROPHETS:  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah, 

Malachi,   by  the    Rev.  Canon  Driver.  Litt.  D.,  D.D. 

•i.  MATTHEW,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.  F.  Slater,  M.A. 

*2.  MARK,  by  the  late  Principal  Salmond^  D.D. 

*3.  LUKE,  by  Principal  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A.,  D.D. 

*4.  JOHN,  by  the  Rev.  J.  A.  McClymont,  D.D. 

*«;.  ACTS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  J.  Vernon  Bartlet.  M.A.,  D.D. 

*6.  ROMANS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  E.  Garvie,  M.A.,  D.D. 

*7.  1  and  II  CORINTHIANS,  by  Prof.  J.  Massie.  M.A.,  D.D. 

*8.  EPHESIANS,    COLOSSIANS,   PHILEMON,    PHILIPPIANS,    by   the 

Rev.  Prof.  G.  CuRRiB  Martin,  M.A..  B.D. 
*o    I  and  II  THESSALONIANS,  GALATIANS,  by  Principal  W.  F.  Adenev, 

M.A.,  D.D. 
»io.  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES,  by  the  Rev.  R.  F.  HoRTO.v,  M.A.,  D.D 
*ii.  HEBREWS,  by  Prof  A.  S.  PeAke,  M.A.,D.D. 
!    *12.  THE  GENERAL  EPISTLES,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.W.  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D., 
I  D.D. 

*i3.  REVELATION,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  C.  Anderson  Scott,  M.A.,  B  D. 

I  \_Those  marked*  are  already  publis/ied.] 

L       — — 


General  Editor  : 
Principal  Walter  F.  Adeney,  M.A.,  D.D. 


J[eremia 


ani 


SamtntationB 


VOL.  II 

JEREMIAH  XXV  to  LII 

LAMENTATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

REVISED  VERSION  WITH  NOTES 

MAP  AND  INDEX 


EDITED    BY 

A.  S.  PEAKE,  D.D. 

YLANDS  PROFESSOR  OF  BIBLICAL  EXEGESIS  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  MANCHESTEI/ 

TUTOR   IM  TUB  PRIMITIVE  METHOUIST  COLLEGE,    MANCHESTER,  ANIJ 

LECTURER  IN  LANCASHIRE  INDEPENDENT  COLLEGE  ;   SOiMETUIE 

FELLOW  OF  MERTON  COLLEGE,  AND  LECTURER  IN 

MANSFIELD  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 


NEW  YORK:  HENRY  FROWDE 

OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS,  AMERICAN  BRANCH 

EDINBURGH  :  T.  C.  &  E.  C.  JACK 


The  Revised  Version  is  printed  by  pertJiission  of  the 
Universities  of  Oxford  aftd  Cambridge 


PREFACE 

In  sending  forth  the  second  volume  of  this  work 
I  desire  to  renew  my  thanks  to  the  scholars  named  in 
the  Preface  of  the  first  volume,  and  add  an  expression 
of  gratitude  to  those  whose  writings  have  been  helpful 
for  the  Commentary  on  Lamentations,  especially  Lohr, 
Budde,  and  Cheyne. 

I  am  grateful  for  the  cordial  welcome  which  the 
first  volume  has  received,  and  trust  that  its  successor 
may  be  equally  fortunate.  I  should  like,  however,  to 
take  this  opportunity  of  meeting  some  criticisms  which 
have  been  urged  in  a  friendly  spirit  by  two  competent 
reviewers.  Prof.  Jordan  {^Review  of  Theology  and 
Philosophy^  vol.  vi)  thinks  that  it  would  have  been  an 
improvement  to  print  the  'poems  of  Jeremiah'  in 
parallel  lines.  But  this  would  have  been  to  depart 
from  the  practice  which  obtains  in  the  series  ;  it  would 
have  made  demands  on  space  that  could  be  ill  afforded; 
and  the  permission  to  print  the  Revised  Version  hardly 
included  the  permission  to  rearrange  it.  And  where 
a  text  has  been  so  expanded  by  glosses  as  is  often  the 
case  with  ours,  the  attempt  to  indicate  poetical  struct- 
ure could  not  be  satisfactorily  carried  through  ;  since 
the  poetical  form  could  not  be  indicated  unless  the 
glosses  were  removed  from  the  text.  But  in  a  work 
Hke  the  present  the  editor  has  no  right  to  tamper  with 
the  Revisers'  text.  What  Prof.  Jordan  wishes  is  an 
admirable  object  in  itself ;  but  could  be  legitimately 
attained  only  in  an  independent  translation. 

On  the  criticism  that  too  much  space  is  taken  up 
for  the  quotation  of  conflicting  opinions  I  may  say 
that  my  practice  was  adopted  quite  deliberately.  It 
is  an  injustice  to  the  student  for  an  editor  to  impose 
his  own  view,  which  may  be  wrong,  upon  him,  without 


vi  PREFACE 

giving  him  warning  that  eminent  authorities  take 
a  different  view.  And  in  a  Commentary  on  Jeremiah 
it  is  specially  incumbent  on  the  writer  to  observe  this 
rule,  in  view  of  the  very  important  work  recently  done 
on  the  book,  which  is  not  accessible  to  the  English 
reader ;  of  the  new  problems  which  have  been  raised ; 
and  the  fact  that  much  information  required  by 
students  in  Universities  and  Colleges  is  as  yet 
provided  for  them  in  English  nowhere  else. 

My  friend  Prof.  Bennett  finds  my  treatment  of  Jere- 
miah and  the  Chaldean  party  more  one-sided  than  what 
I  should  have  given  in  a  more  technical  work  {Review 
of  Theology  and  Philosophy^  August,  19 1 1).  Anything 
he  said  on  an  Old  Testament  subject  would  always 
claim  my  careful  attention  ;  but  especially  would  this 
be  the  case  in  a  subject  where  he  has  himself  done  such 
admirable  work.  It  is  one  of  the  misfortunes  incident 
to  the  piecemeal  publication  of  this  work,  that  impres- 
sions have  been  made  by  the  summary  statement  in 
the  Introduction  to  the  first  volume,  which  would 
perhaps  have  been  removed  by  the  qualifications 
which  are  given  in  the  second  volume.  I  have 
left  my  notes  on  the  episode  of  Hananiah  as  they 
were  written  before  Prof  Bennett's  review  appeared ; 
and  I  trust  that  he  will  feel  that  I  have  done  full  jus- 
tice to  Hananiah's  sincerity.  But  I  cannot  retreat  from 
my  conviction  that  Jeremiah  (I  say  nothing  of  *the 
Chaldean  party,'  of  which  I  know  next  to  nothing) 
was  entirely  in  the  right  in  the  policy  he  laid  down. 
Here,  I  fear,  there  is  a  real  difference  between  us  ;  but 
I  hope  my  judgement  is  not  warped  by  the  hero-wor- 
ship to  which  I  am  happy  to  plead  guilty. 

ARTHUR  S.  PEAKE. 
December  15,  191 1. 


CONTENTS 


JEREMIAH 

PACE 

Text  of  the  Revised  Version  with  Aknotations      .        3 


LAMENTATIONS 

Editor's  Introduction 289 

I.  Position  in  Canon,  and  Title         ....  289 

II.  Literary  Form 289 

III.  Authorship  and  Date 292 

IV.  Selected  Literature 297 

Text  of  the  Revised  Version  with  Annotations      .  3°^ 

Index 35i 

Map.     The  kingdoms  of  J  udah  and  Israel        .         .        at  front 


THE   BOOK   OF   JEREMIAH 

CHAPTERS  XXV-LII 
REVISED  VERSION  WITH  ANNOTATIONS 


II 


THE   BOOK   OF  THE   PROPHET 

JEREMIAH 

[R]  The  word  that  came  to  Jeremiah  concerning  all  the  25 


XXV.  Judgement  on  Judah  and  the  Nations  at  the  Hand 
OF  THE  Chaldeans. 

With  this  chapter  we  return  from  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  to  that 
of  Jehoiakim.  The  fourth  year  of  that  monarch,  to  which  the 
oracle  is  assigned,  was  a  critical  year  not  merely  for  the  prophet 
and  for  Judah  but  for  universal  history.  In  it  Jeremiah  received 
his  commission  to  collect  all  his  prophecies,  that  the  people  might 
have  an  opportunity  of  escaping  by  amendment  of  life  from  the 
evil  which  Yahweh  purposed  against  them.  In  this  year,  accord- 
ing to  xlvi.  2  (though  it  may  have  been  a  year  earlier  :  see  note  on 
XXV.  i),  the  battle  of  Carchemish  took  place,  in  which  the  defeat  of 
Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar  settled  the  contest  between  Egypt  and 
Babylon  for  the  rule  of  Western  Asia  in  favour  of  the  latter.  This 
year  was  therefore  critical  not  only  for  the  Jews,  since  it  trans- 
ferred them  from  the  short-lived  suzerainty  of  Pharaoh  to  that  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  but  for  other  peoples  as  well.  It  was  fitting 
therefore  that  Jeremiah  should  at  such  a  time  gather  up  his 
teaching  for  one  great  cumulative  appeal ;  and  we  might  anticipate 
that  he  would,  as  a  prophet  set  over  the  nations  (i.  lo),  embrace 
them  also  in  his  survey  of  the  situation  created  by  this  decisive 
turn  in  the  fortunes  of  his  world.  Such  an  anticipation  seems  to 
be  justified  by  the  present  chapter,  in  which  the  prophet  not  only 
appeals  to  his  long-continued  warnings  to  Judah  and  predicts  the 
vengeance  of  God  upon  it,  but  includes  many  peoples  in  his  vision 
of  judgement. 

But  although  the  chapter  seems  to  suit  the  historical  situation,  it 
presents  numerous  critical  difficulties,  which  have  excited  such 
suspicion  that  several  scholars  have  rejected  its  authenticity  alto- 
gether, while  others  eliminate  considerable  parts  of  it.  The  most 
noteworthy  fact  about  the  chapter  is  that  between  13  and  15  the 
LXX  has  inserted  the  oracles  on  the  foreign  nations,  xlvi-li  (xxv. 
14  being  absent  in  the  LXX).  The  order  in  which  these  chapters 
are  placed  differs  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  text,  but  this  is 
a  matter  to  be  considered  when  these  chapters  are  discussed.  But 
the  criticism  of  the  present  chapter  is  connected  with  that  of 
xlvi-li  in  two  ways.  A  denial  of  the  Jeremianic  origin  of  the 
B  2 


4  JEREMIAH  25.  i.     K 

people  of  Judah  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the  son 

oracles  on  the  foreign  nations  tends  to  draw  with  it  a  rejection  of 
XXV.  And  there  is  also  the  question  whether  these  oracles 
originally  stood  in  immediate  connexion  with  xxv.  The  former 
of  these  questions  cannot  be  profitably  discussed  at  this  stage  ;  it 
belongs  rather  to  the  examination  of  these  oracles.  It  must  suffice 
to  say  at  this  point  that,  while  in  their  present  form  they  contain 
not  a  little  non-Jeremianic  matter,  they  j'et  have  a  genuine 
nucleus ;  so  that  we  may  approach  the  present  chapter  without 
any  prejudice  against  its  authenticity  derived  from  a  similar  con- 
viction with  reference  to  the  oracles  on  the  nations.  The  second 
question,  however,  calls  for  attention  here. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  chapter  is  closely  connected  with 
the  oracles  on  the  nations.  In  both  cases  the  same  peoples  to  a 
large  extent  recur  with  considerable,  though  by  no  means  complete, 
agreement  in  order.  Further  xxv.  13  refers  definitely  to  a  book 
in  which  a  prophecy  against  Babylon  is  contained,  and  such  a 
prophecy  we  have  in  1-li.  But  is  the  position  accorded  to  these 
oracles  by  the  LXX  after  xxv.  13  original?  In  its  present  form 
xxv.  1-13  leads  up  well  to  such  a  series  of  oracles  on  the  nations, 
and  the  reference  to  '  this  book '  implies  that  a  collection  of  oracles 
was  appended.  Moreover,  the  LXX  takes  the  closing  words  of 
xxv.  13  as  a  title  to  this  collection.  Probably  the  Hebrew  should 
also  be  interpreted  in  the  same  way  (see  note  on  12-14).  But,  if 
so,  we  have  definite  evidence  that  at  one  time  xlvi-li  stood  after 
xxv.  13  not  only  in  the  LXX  but  in  the  Hebrew  text  itself.  It  is 
nevertheless  very  improbable  that  this  was  its  original  position. 
The  insertion  of  these  oracles  at  this  point  tears  xxv  in  two, 
separating  sections  that  are  really  connected.  Further,  the  vision 
of  the  goblet  of  Yahweh's  wrath  obviously  cannot  have  followed 
the  detailed  prophecies  on  the  nations.  It  leads  up  to  them  ad- 
mirably, but  its  effect  is  completely  lost  if  it  is  placed  after  them. 
And  it  is  questionable  whether  xxv.  1-13  was  fitted  in  its  original 
form  to  be  an  introduction  to  xlvi-li.  Schwally  (in  Stade's 
Zeitschrift  for  1888,  pp.  177-217)  has  argued  that  the  original  text 
of  1-13  has  undergone  a  revision  in  the  LXX  which  has  been 
carried  a  stage  further  in  the  Hebrew.  Cornill,  on  the  basis  of 
Schwally's  investigation,  defends  the  position  that  it  is  only  in 
this  doubly  revised  form  that  the  passage  constitutes  a  good  intro- 
duction to  xlvi-li,  and  that  the  second  revision  was  definitely 
intended  to  fit  it  for  this  purpose.  If  so,  the  same  conclusion 
would  result  that  xlvi-li  did  not  originally  follow  xxv.  1-13. 
The  validity  of  this  last  argument  is  rather  a  problem  in  the 
detailed  exegesis  of  the  passage,  but  the  other  arguments  suffice 
to  render  it  improbable  that  the  oracles  against  the  foreign  nations 
are  correctly  placed  in  the  LXX. 


JEREMIAH  25.  i.     R  5 

of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah ;  the  same  was  the  first  year  of 


What  then  was  their  original  position  ?  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
in  the  Hebrew  they  once  occupied  the  same  position  as  they  now 
hold  in  the  LXX,  it  is  not  an  arbitrary  suggestion  that  they  were 
originally  connected  with  xxv,  a  suggestion  which  is  corroborated 
by  the  community  of  subject-matter.  Since,  however,  they  must 
follow  rather  than  precede  the  vision  of  the  goblet,  we  should  pro- 
bably place  them  at  the  close  of  xxv  in  its  original  form.  But  this 
raises  the  further  question  as  to  the  reason  for  their  transposition 
from  the  close  of  xxv  to  the  position  they  now  hold  in  the  LXX 
and  once  held  in  the  Hebrew  text.  Cornill  points  out  that 
a  difficulty  was  created  by  the  fact  that  the  anticipations  expressed 
in  the  vision  of  the  goblet  of  Yahweh's  wrath  were  not  really  ful- 
filled after  Carchemish,  so  that  it  became  advisable  to  detach  the 
oracles  on  the  nations  from  the  vision,  a  course  which  was  also 
recommended  by  the  feeling  in  the  later  period  that  such  a  vision 
was  too  great  to  be  treated  as  a  mere  description  of  political  cata- 
strophes, and  had  to  be  brought  into  connexion  with  God's  final 
judgement  on  the  world.  In  confirmation  of  this  he  points  to  the 
working  over  which  xxv.  15-38  has  experienced.  This  has  been 
in  the  direction  of  heightening  the  apocalyptic  character  of  the 
passage,  and  turning  it  into  a  description  of  the  Divine  judgement 
on  the  nations  as  the  later  Jewish  eschatology  conceived  it.  But 
the  vision  as  thus  transformed  no  longer  permitted  the  oracles  on 
the  nations  with  their  relevance  to  the  historical  situation  to  stand 
as  its  explication,  and  this  provided  a  further  reason  for  removing 
them  from  their  original  connexion.  The  date  in  xlvi.  2,  '  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,'  was  identical  with  that  in  xxv,  i,  and 
occasioned  the  connexion  with  xxv.  1-13,  from  which,  with  the 
exception  of  the  title,  the  oracles  on  the  nations  were  subsequently 
removed  to  the  position  they  now  hold  in  the  Hebrew  text. 

The  question  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  chapter  still  remains. 
Schwally,  who  has  discussed  it  in  connexion  with  xlvi-li,  has  pro- 
nounced against  its  genuineness,  and  the  same  view  is  taken  by 
some  other  iicholars.  As  against  1-13  even  in  its  earliest  form  he 
argues  that  it  cannot  be  authentic,  not  only  because  it  contains 
the  most  general  ideas  which  would  be  suitable  at  any  time,  but 
because  it  does  not  contain  any  reflection  on  the  possibility  of 
repentance,  which  is  never  missing  in  Jeremiah's  prophecies,  not 
even  in  those  which  were  uttered  near  the  end  of  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem  (p.  184).  Cornill  replies  that  this  objection  overlooks 
the  difference  between  the  situation  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoi- 
akim, and  the  close  of  Zedekiah's  reign.  In  the  former  case  it 
was  an  upheaval  affecting  the  whole  of  Jeremiah's  world,  for 
which  Judah  had  no   responsibility  ;   in   the  latter  case    it  was 


6  JEREMIAH  25.  2.     R 

3  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon ;   the  which  Jeremiah 

a  dispute  between  the  king  of  Babylon  and  his  rebellious  vassal. 
Moreover,  after  Carchemish  matters  had  turnedout  quite  differently 
from  what  might  have  been  expected.  It  was  natural  to  anticipate 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  would  act  with  the  same  ferocity  as  other  con- 
querors, and  we  can  well  understand  that  Jeremiah  believed  that 
at  last  the  foe  from  the  north  had  come  to  fulfil  his  long-deferred 
prophecies  of  judgement.  But  matters  took  an  unexpected  turn. 
Nebuchadnezzar  after  his  victory  at  Carchemish  learnt  of  his 
father's  death,  and  had  to  return  to  Babylon,  after  concluding  peace 
with  Pharaoh.  Thus  Jeremiah,  remembering  the  mercy  of  God  in 
averting  this  catastrophe,  could  exhort  his  countrymen  to  reform 
even  after  Zedekiah  had  broken  his  oath  of  allegiance,  whereas  in 
605  he  had  no  reason  to  expect  anything  but  the  worst,  and  there- 
fore no  longer  called  them  to  repentance. 

The  genuineness  of  xxv.  15-38  is  set  aside  on  grounds  similar 
to  those  which  are  urged  against  xlvi-li,  and  because  Jeremiah  is 
not  allowed  to  be  a  prophet  to  the  nations.  Neither  ground  is 
conclusive  ;  for  the  former  see  the  discussion  of  those  chapters,  for 
the  latter  what  is  said  in  vol.  i,  pp.  77,  78.  Cornill  pointed  out  in 
his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  that  the  figure  of  the  goblet 
of  Yahweh's  wrath  is  absent  from  the  earlier  literature,  but  after 
Jeremiah's  time  becomes  prominent.  Giesebrecht,  who  agreed  that 
there  was  a  genuine  Jeremianic  element  in  the  passage,  replied 
that  Cornill  had  overlooked  Nahum  iii.  ir.  Cornill,  however,  does 
not  admit  that  this  passage,  'Thou  also  shalt  be  drunken,'  has  any 
reference  to  the  cup  of  Divine  anger,  and  still  maintains  that  the 
currency  which  the  metaphor  received  after  Jeremiah's  time 
points  to  its  Jeremianic  origin.  Giesebrecht  in  his  second  edition 
repeats  his  objection  without  any  reference  to  Cornill's  reply. 

We  may  accordingly  recognize  a  genuine  element  in  both 
sections  of  the  chapter.  A  discussion  of  the  extent  to  which  it 
has  undergone  editorial  expansion  may  be  left  for  the  notes. 

xxv.  1-7.  In  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  Jeremiah  reminded 
his  people  how,  since  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah,  he  had  urged 
them  to  abandon  their  evil  way  that  they  might  dwell  in  the  land, 
but  they  had  refused  to  listen. 

8-1 1.  Therefore  the  northern  people  will  come  against  their  land 
and  the  surrounding  peoples,  and  lay  the  land  waste,  and  the 
Babylonian  supremacy  shall  last  seventy  years. 

12-14.  Then  after  seventy  years  the  king  of  Babylon  shall  be 
punished,  and  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans  shall  be  desolate,  accord- 
ing to  all  that  is  written  in  this  book ;  and  many  nations  shall 
make  them  their  servants.  Thus  Yahweh  will  requite  them  for 
their  deeds. 


JEREMIAH  25.  3.     R  JS  7 

the  prophet  spake  unto  all  the  people  of  Judah,  and  to 
all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  saying :  [JS]  From  the  3 
thirteenth  year  of  Josiah  the  son  of  Amon,  king  of  Judah, 

15-29.  Yahweh  bade  me  take  from  His  hand  the  cup  of  His  fury, 
and  make  the  nations  drink  to  whom  He  sent  me.  So  I  took  the 
cup  and  made  the  nations  drink  it,  beginning  with  Jerusalem  and 
the  cities  of  Judah,  then  Egypt  and  other  kingdoms.  He  told  me 
to  bid  them  drink  and  fall,  never  more  to  rise.  And  if  they 
refused  I  must  tell  them  in  His  name  that  they  should  surely 
drink,  for  He  would  begin  His  chastisement  with  His  own  city, 
and  they  should  certainly  not  be  spared. 

30-33.  Yahweh  will  roar  against  Judah,  and  shout  as  in  the 
treading  of  the  grapes  against  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world. 
The  noise  of  battle  is  heard  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  for  Yahweh 
is  contending  with  all  flesh.  Evil  goes  from  nation  to  nation  ;  the 
slain  of  Yahweh  shall  lie  unburied  on  the  ground  from  end  to  end 
of  the  earth. 

34-38.  Let  the  rulers  and  nobles  lament  for  their  inevitable 
doom.  Yahweh  lays  waste  their  abodes.  He  has  left  His  retreat 
to  ravage  the  land  in  anger. 

XXV.  1.  The  synchronism  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  may 
perhaps  be  original,  but  it  is  absent  in  the  LXX  and  is  probably 
the  insertion  of  an  editor.  For  the  date  of  Nebuchadnezzar  cf. 
xxxii.  I,  lii.  12,  2  Kings  xxiv.  12,  xxv.  8.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  not 
actually  king  of  Babylon  when  the  decisive  battle  of  Carchemish  took 
place,  but  on  the  death  of  his  father  Nabopolassar,  which  occurred 
shortly  afterwards,  he  succeeded  to  the  throne.  The  synchronism 
seems  to  conflict  with  xlvi.  2.  If  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
(604  B.C.)  was  the  first  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  should  apparently 
place  the  battle  of  Carchemish  in  605,  i.e.  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim.  But  it  is  very  questionable  if  the  synchronism  in  this 
verse  can  be  trusted. 

2.  The  LXX  omits  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  reading  simply 
which  he  spake.  It  was  apparently  added  for  the  sake  of 
clearness  by  a  scribe  who  took  the  unnecessary  precaution  of 
explaining  that  Jeremiah,  and  not  one  of  the  three  people 
mentioned  after  him,  was  the  speaker. 

3.  The  date,  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah,  is  that  of 
Jeremiah's  call,  as  we  learn  from  i.  2.  The  interval  of  twenty- 
three  years  was  made  up  of  nineteen  under  Josiah,  three  months 
under  Jehoahaz,  and  the  portion  of  Jehoiakim's  reign  which  had 
elapsed  at  this  time.  The  passage  naturally  suggests  that  during 
this  period  Jeremiah  had  exercised  a  continuous  ministry,  but  this 
seems   hardly  to  have  been  the  case,  for  in  the  latter  part  of 


8  JEREMIAH  25.  4,  5.     JS  S  JS 

even  unto  this  day,  these  three  and  twenty  years,  the 
word  of  the  Lord  hath  come  unto  me,  and  I  have  spoken 
unto  you,  rising  up  early  and  speaking;  [s]  but  ye  have  not 

4  hearkened.  And  the  Lord  hath  sent  unto  you  all  his 
servants  the  prophets,  rising  up  early  and  sending  them ; 
but  ye  have  not  hearkened,  nor  inclined  your  ear  to  hear ; 

5  [JS]  saying,  Return  ye  now  every  one  from  his  evil  way, 
and  from  the  evil  of  your  doings,  and  dwell  in  the  land 
that  the  Lord  hath  given  unto  you  and  to  your  fathers^ 

Josiah's  reign  he  appears  to  have  kept  silence.  The  expression 
accordingly  ought  not  to  be  pressed. 

the  word  of  the  IJORD  hath  come  unto  me.  This  is  absent 
in  the  LXX,  and  has  apparently  been  introduced  from  i.  2.  On 
the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  which  similarly  is  absent  in  the  LXX, 
see  the  next  note. 

4.  This  verse  is  rejected  by  several  scholars  as  a  gloss.  The 
reference  to  the  activity  of  the  earlier  prophets  is  out  of  place, 
where  the  question  concerns  the  disobedience  of  Jeremiah's 
contemporaries  to  the  message  he  proclaimed,  for,  as  Cornill 
points  out,  however  vain  the  work  of  earlier  prophets  had  been, 
judgement  would  have  been  averted  had  the  people  repented  at 
the  preaching  of  Jeremiah.  Besides,  according  to  this  verse  the 
words  which  follow  in  5,  6  are  the  words  of  Yahweh  through  these 
prophets,  but  7  in  its  original  form  shows  that  they  are  Jeremiah's 
words,  'Ye  hearkened  not  unto  me,'  as  indeed  we  should  expect 
from  3.  With  this  verse  we  should  also  omit  the  closing  words  of 
3,  'but  ye  have  not  hearkened,'  which  are  omitted  by  the  LXX, 
and  thus  restore  the  connexion  of  5  with  3  in  its  original  form. 
The  verse  is  derived  from  vii.  25,  26,  xi.  7, 8.  The  LXX  continues 
3  without  change  of  subject, '  And  I  sent  unto  you  all  my  servants.' 
The  Hebrew  *  And  Yahweh  sent '  is  clearly  a  correction  ;  this 
confirms  the  view  that  the  verse  is  a  later  insertion. 

5.  saying*.  According  to  the  present  text  this  must  connect 
with  4*;  and  4^  ('but  .  .  .  hear')  must  be  treated  as  a  parenthesis. 
But  when  4  and  the  last  clause  of  3  have  been  struck  out  (see 
preceding  note),  it  connects  with  '  I  have  spoken  unto  you,'  &c. 
in  3,  and  introduces  the  content  of  Jeremiah's  preaching. 

and  dwell:  expresses  the  consequence  that  will  follow  from 
obedience  to  the  injunction  ;  true  reformation  will  secure  the 
permanent  enjoyment  of  the  land,  which  in  Yahweh's  original 
intention  had  been  allotted  to  them  as  their  perpetual  inheritance. 

the  LOBD  hath  given.    The  LXX  '  I  have  given  '  is  probably 


JEREMIAH  25.  6-8.     JS  J  9 

from  of  old  and  even  for  evermore  :  and  go  not  after  other  6 
gods  to  serve  them,  and  to  worship  them,  and  provoke 
me  not  to  anger  with  the  work  of  your  hands ;  and  I  will 
do  you  no  hurt.     Yet  ye  have  not  hearkened  unto  me,  7 
saith  the  Lord  ;  that  ye  might  provoke  me  to  anger  with 
the  work  of  your  hands  to  your  own  hurt,    [j]  Therefore  8 


not  to  be  preferred.  It  is  a  correction  of  the  Hebrew,  carrying 
out  more  consistently  the  consequences  of  the  insertion  of  4,  in 
which  Yahweh  is  represented  as  the  speaker. 

6.  Ccrnill  treats  this  as  an  insertion,  on  the  ground  that  the 
close  of  5  forms  a  natural  conclusion  to  the  summary  of  the 
prophet's  message,  after  which  nothing  more  is  to  be  expected. 
Duhm  retains  it,  regarding  the  idea  that  the  pre-exilic  people  was 
completely  given  up  to  idolatry  as  characteristic  of  the  later 
supplementers  of  the  book,  to  whom  he  assigns  this  chapter.  It  is 
not  necessary,  however,  to  strike  it  out,  even  if  we  hold  fast  a 
genuine  Jeremianic  element  in  the  passage.  Cornill's  argument  for 
deletion  is  quite  inadequate,  and  Duhm's  bias  against  the  authenti- 
city of  passages  which  denounce  idolatry  suffers  from  exaggeration. 
But  the  text  needs  correction.  For  'provoke  me  not,'  in  which 
the  LXX  agrees  with  the  Hebrew,  we  should  read  '  provoke  not 
Yahweh,'  the  abbreviated  form  of  the  Divine  name  being  misread 
as  the  pronominal  suffix.  Jeremiah  thus  continues  to  speak  in  his 
own  person.  Similarly  at  the  close  of  the  verse  we  should  substi- 
tute for  *  and  I  will  do  you  no  hurt'  the  closing  words  of  7,  *  to  your 
own  hurt'  (see  note  on  that  verse). 

V.  The  whole  of  the  verse,  with  the  exception  of 'Yet  ye  have 
not  hearkened  unto  me,'  should  be  struck  out,  with  the  LXX.  The 
insertion  of  'saith  the  Lord'  has  been  occasioned  by  the  mistaken 
idea  that  Yahweh  was  the  speaker  ;  the  rest  of  the  verse  is  simply 
a  variant  of  6'*,  for  which,  however,  we  may  be  grateful  since  it 
has  preserved  the  correct  text  of  the  closing  words  *  to  your  own 
hurt.'  By  the  aid  of  the  LXX  we  have  thus  been  enabled  to 
restore  a  consistent  text  in  which  Jeremiah  is  the  sole  speaker 
and  Yahweh  is  throughout  referred  to  in  the  third  person. 
■ante  me:  i.e.  Jeremiah. 

8.  Such  then  has  been  the  tragic  history  of  the  prophet's 
ministry.  For  three  and  twenty  years  he  has  spoken  to  his 
people  the  message  of  Yahweh,  bidding  them  repent  and  turn 
from  their  evil  doings  and  idolatrous  practices.  But  they  have 
not  listened  to  his  words.  What  then  remains  ?  The  day  of  grace 
is  past,  the  invitation  to  return  is  extended  no  longer.  Yahv/ch 
Himself  now  pronounces  the  doom  which  such  obstinate  disobedi- 


lo  JEREMIAH  25.  9.     J 

thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts  :  Because  ye  have  not  heard 
9  my  words,  behold,  I  will  send  and  take  all  the  families  of 
the  north,  saith  the  Lord,  and  /  will  send  unto  Nebu- 
chadrezzar the  king  of  Babylon,  my  servant,  and  will 
bring  them  against  this  land,  and  against  the  inhabitants 
thereof,  and  against  all  these  nations  round  about ;  and 


ence  has  so  richly  merited.  The  foe  from  the  north,  whose  coming 
has  been  so  long  foretold,  will  now  come  indeed,  and  inflict  the 
uttermost  vengeance  on  the  rebellious  nation,  in  whose  downfall 
the  surrounding  nations  will  be  involved. 

9.  all  tlie  families :  cf.  i.  15.  The  LXX  omits  '  all '  and  reads 
the  singular  (cf.  v.  15,  vi.  22)  ;  the  Hebrew  is  preferable,  since  the 
omission  of '  all '  in  the  Greek  was  probably  due  to  its  similarity  to 
the  following  word,  and  the  plural  pronominal  suffix  ('them') 
favours  a  plural  antecedent.  On  the  other  hand,  the  LXX  is 
probably  right  in  omitting  'saith  the  Lord,'  which  is  unnecessary 
in  an  utterance  of  Yahweh. 

and  I  will  send  .  .  .  my  servant.  This  is  rightly  omitted  by 
the  LXX.  The  Hebrew  is  very  awkward,  and  the  subordinate 
position  assigned  to  Nebuchadnezzar  is  hardly  what  we  should 
expect. 

my  servant:  so  called  as  the  instrument  of  Yahweh's  ven- 
geance, not  of  course  as  a  worshipper  of  Yahweh.  It  is  note- 
worthy that  the  LXX  omits  the  title  when  applied  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar elsewhere  in  the  book  (xxvii.  6,  xliii.  10),  probably  because 
the  translator  objected  to  the  designation  of  an  idolater  by  so 
honourable  a  title. 

and  against  all  these  nations  round  about.  Schwally, 
Bleeker,  and  Duhm  strike  out  the  whole  clause.  But  while  the 
prophet  is  naturally  thinking  of  Judah  in  the  first  instance,  the 
political  situation  drew  the  surrounding  peoples  with  it.  Jeremiah, 
it  is  true,  seems,  if  this  clause  is  genuine,  to  trace  the  overthrow 
of  these  nations  to  the  guilt  of  Judah.  But  this  is  not  unexampled  : 
the  storm  which  threatened  to  overwhelm  Jonah,  who  represents 
Israel,  and  the  heathen  sailors  in  a  common  destruction,  was  due 
solely  to  Jonah's  sin  ;  and  a  similar  attitude  is  observable  else- 
where. Jeremiah,  like  other  prophets,  was  preoccupied  with  the 
sin  of  his  own  people  and  its  punishment  ;  apparently  he  felt  no 
problem  to  be  raised  by  the  overthrow  of  other  peoples  which  he 
expected  to  accompany  it.  We  should,  however,  follow  the  LXX 
in  omitting  *  these,'  and  read  simply  'the  nations  round  about,' 
especially  as  the  only  nations  hitherto  mentioned  are  '  the  families 
of  the  north,'  who  of  course  are  not  intended. 


JEREMIAH  25.  lo.     J  ii 

I  will  ^  utterly  destroy  them,  and  make  them  an  astonish- 
ment, and  an  hissing,  and  perpetual  desolations.     More-  lo 

*  Heb.  devote. 

I  will  utterly  destroy  them.  The  Hebrew  means  '  I  will 
put  them  under  the  ban,'  the  ban  being  a  sacred  vow  by  which 
its  object  was  devoted  to  utter  destruction.  Thus  Achan  brought 
disaster  on  Israel  by  '  a  trespass  in  the  devoted  thing,'  having 
appropriated  gold,  silver,  and  raiment  from  the  spoil  of  Jericho 
(Joshua  vii) ;  while  Saul  is  represented  as  rejected  by  God  because 
he  had  not  carried  out  the  ban  upon  Amaiek,  but  had  spared  Agag 
and  the  choicest  of  the  spoil  (i  Sam.  xv).  The  expression  is  often 
used  with  reference  to  the  extermination  of  Canaanites  in  Deuter- 
onomy and  Joshua.  It  is  questionable,  however,  whether  the  text 
is  correct.  The  LXX  reads  *  I  will  make  them  desolate,'  which 
involves  the  change  of  a  single  consonant.  It  is  not  quite  easy  to 
choose  between  them,  since,  as  Cornill  points  out,  both  verbs  occur 
elsewhere  in  the  book  only  in  the  non-Jeremianic  section  1,  li.  He 
prefers  the  LXX,  on  the  ground  that  the  same  root  frequently 
occurs  in  Jeremiah,  while  the  root  of  the  alternative  word  does 
not  occur. 

desolations.  The  LXX  reads  *  reproach ' :  cf.  xxiii.  40,  xxiv. 
g.  In  xxix.  18  the  same  three  nouns,  'an  astonishment,  and  an 
hissing,  and  a  reproach,'  are  combined.  It  is  on  the  whole  proba- 
ble that  we  should  read  '  reproach '  here.  It  is  true  that  we  might 
suspect  assimilation  to  xxix.  18  ;  but  in  view  of  the  similarity  of 
the  two  words  it  is  unlikely  that  the  change  is  to  be  accounted  for 
in  this  way,  and  it  is  much  more  likely  that  *  reproach  '  was 
changed  into  '  desolations'  under  the  influence  of  the  verb  *  I  will 
make  them  desolate  '  which  occurs  just  before  (see  preceding 
note). 

10.  For  the  former  part  of  the  verse  cf.  vii.  34,  xvi.  9,  xxxiii.  ir. 
But  here  we  have  a  significant  addition.  For  the  voice  of  mirth 
and  gladness,  or  of  the  bridegroom  and  the  bride,  might  be  hushed 
vhen  the  land  was  still  thronged  with  inhabitants.  The  absence  of 
joyful  song  and  the  sound  of  merriment  would  mean  that  a  great 
sorrow  was  brooding  over  the  people  when  feasting  and  marriage 
could  not  fitly  be  celebrated.  But  in  times  of  the  deepest  dejection 
the  urgent  physical  needs  must  be  satisfied,  the  hand-mill  must 
grind  the  daily  supply  of  corn,  the  lamp  must  be  lit  as  the  darkness 
closes  in.  The  sound  of  the  grinding,  which  can  be  heard  at 
a  distance  in  the  early  morning,  is  the  invariable  sign  of  human 
life  in  the  East,  and  even  in  the  poorest  home  the  lamp  is  indis- 
pensable. The  deathly  stillness  when  the  harsh  sound  of  the  mill 
no  longer  falls  on  the  ear,  the  darkness  in  which  no  light  glimmers 
from   the   cottage,  are    infallible   tokens  that  the  land  has  been 


12  JEREMIAH  25.  ii.     J 

over  I  will  «•  take  from  them  the  voice  of  mirth  and  the 
voice  of  gladness,  the  voice  of  the  bridegroom  and  the 
voice  of  the  bride,  the  sound  of  the  millstones,  and  the 
light  of  the  candle.  And  this  whole  land  shall  be  a 
desolation,  and  an  astonishment ;  and  these  nations  shall 

^  Heb.  cause  to  perish  from  them. 

stripped  of  its  inhabitants.  It  is  with  the  instinct  of  genius  that 
the  poet  has  seized  on  the  absence  of  these  signs  to  indicate  the 
fate  which  is  to  overtake  Judah  and  the  surrounding  peoples.  In 
the  Revelation  of  John  the  same  signs  are  borrowed  to  describe 
the  desolation  of  Babylon,  i.e.  Rome  (xviii.  22,  23). 

millstones.  The  hand-mill  consisted  of  two  stones  ;  the  '  nether 
millstone  '  was  stationary,  the  upper  revolved  upon  it,  being  often 
turned  by  two  women  (Matt.  xxiv.  41,  Luke  xvii.  35),  one  of  whom 
fed  the  mill  with  her  right  hand  through  the  hole  in  the  upper 
stone.  Deut.  xxiv.  6  forbids  the  mill  or  the  upper  millstone  to  be 
taken  in  pledge,  *  for  he  taketh  a  man's  life  to  pledge,'  so  indis- 
pensable was  it  to  the  provision  of  the  daily  bread.  The  LXX 
reads  'scent  of  myrrh.'  The  word  rendered  'millstones'  is  the 
dual  of  a  word  very  similar  to  that  for  '  scent,'  and  the  Greek  words 
for  '  myrrh  '  and  '  mill '  are  also  very  similar.  The  reading  has  no 
claim  to  be  considered  as  original,  but  it  apparently  arose  from  both 
the  causes  mentioned,  not  simply  from  the  latter. 

candle  :  rather  lamp,  as  the  R.V.  usually  renders. 

11.  and  these  nations  shall  serve  the  king'  of  Babylon 
seventy  years.  This  is  a  difficult  passage.  The  LXX  reads 
simply  'And  they  shall  serve  among  the  nations  seventy  years.' 
It  is  probable  that  it  correctly  represents  the  original  text  in  its 
omission  of  'these'  and  'the  king  of  Babylon,'  also  that  a  retrans- 
lation  of  its  text  gives  us  the  original  Hebrew.  It  is  questionable, 
however,  whether  the  Greek  translator  rightly  understood  it. 
The  Hebrew  verb  is  used  with  the  preposition  rendered  '  among ' 
in  the  sense  'to  use  as  subjects'  (literally  'to  serve  with  :'  Duhm 
compares  the  expression  '  to  work  with  cattle.'  or  '  work  by  means 
of).  The  phrase  occurs  in  14,  where  it  is  rendered  'shall  serve 
themselves  of  : '  cf.  xxvii.  7,  xxx.  8,  Ezek.  xxxiv.  27,  in  xxii.  13  to  use 
the  service  of.  If  this  sense  is  to  be  maintained  here,  we  must  take 
the  meaning  to  be  that  the  foe  out  of  the  north  will  enslave  the 
nations  and  keep  them  in  bondage  for  seventy  years.  Against  this  it 
may  be  urged  that  the  natural  subject  of  the  verb  is  not  *  the  families 
of  the  north,'  though  with  this  translation  they  alone  are  suitable. 
Cornill  argues  forcibly  that  the  LXX  gives  the  true  meaning,  and 
that  we  need  not  combine  the  verb  and  preposition  in  the  sense 


JEREMIAH  25.  12.     JS  13 

serve  the  king  of  Babylon  seventy  years,     [s]  And  it  12 

*  to  use  as  slaves,'  but  take  the  verb  as  used  absolutely  (as  e.  g.  in  ii. 
20,  '  I  will  not  serve '),  and  the  preposition  as  used  in  its  local  sense 

*  among.'  We  thus  learn  what  becomes  of  the  inhabitants  who 
have  been  torn  from  their  homes  :  they  are  doomed  to  slavery 
among  the  nations.  "The  Hebrew  text  may  have  arisen  through 
the  desire  to  provide  the  verb  with  a  subject,  other  passages  per- 
haps co-operating  (e.g.  xxvii.  7%  and  'the  king  of  Babylon'  was 
inserted  to  provide  the  verb  w^ith  an  object. 

The  prediction  that  the  captivity  would  last  seventy  years  is  ♦ 
suspected  as  non-Jeremianic  by  many  scholars,  including  some  who 
regard  the  chapter  as  a  whole  as  Jeremiah's,  and  admit  his  author- 
ship of  the  similar  prediction  in  xxix.  10.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
latter  passage  was  written  several  years  later,  in  the  reign  of 
Zedekiah,  and  that  the  same  number  is  mentioned  there  as  here. 
But  we  need  not  be  disturbed  by  this  discrepancy,  unless  we  insist 
that  the  number  was  meant  to  be  taken  literally.  More  probably 
we  must  regard  it  as  a  round  number,  just  as  the  same  period  is 
described  in  xxvii.  7  as  embracing  the  reigns  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
'and  his  son,  and  his  son's  son.'  Duhm  considers  that  the  author 
took  it  from  Zech.  i.  12,  'how  long  wilt  thou  not  have  mercy  on 
Jerusalem  and  on  the  cities  of  Judah,  against  which  thou  hast  had 
indignation  these  threescore  and  ten  years?'  (cf.  vii.  5).  But  it  is 
more  likely  that  Zechariah's  reference  to  the  seventy  3'ears  was  occa- 
sioned by  his  acquaintance  ^vith  Jeremiah's  prophecy.  The  angel  of 
Yahweh  enforces  his  plea  by  the  reminder  that  the  seventy  years 
which  had  been  laid  down  in  prophecy  as  the  period  of  Jerusalem's 
humiliation  had  now  expired.  In  any  case  the  actual  duration  of  the 
captivity  was  less  than  seventy  years,  if  we  assume  that  the  first 
return  of  Jews  took  place  in  536  b.c.  Nor  did  the  Babylonian 
supremacy  last  quite  seventy  years.  Had  the  representation  of 
the  subjection  to  Babylon  as  lasting  seventy  years  originated  in 
the  post-exilic  period,  we  should  have  expected  a  closer  agreement 
with  history.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  clause 
did  not  originally  belong  to  this  context,  if  the  reconstruction  of 
the  original  close  of  the  oracle  suggested  in  the  next  note  is 
correct. 

12-14.  This  passage  is  regarded  by  many  scholars  as  a  later 
insertion,  and  was  so  treated  even  by  Graf  (along  with  11^)  and 
by  Hitzig  (except  for  14''),  who  had  been  preceded  by  not  a  few 
critics,  while  others  rejected  only  13.  Orelli  still  substantially 
defends  their  authenticity,  apart  from  13^  A  prophecy  of  Baby- 
lon's overthrow  is  not  in  place  here.  It  is  true  that  it  does  not 
link  on  badly  to  11^,  which,  while  it  predicts  a  long  captivity, 
suggests  that  a  turn  of  fortune,  such  as  the  overthrow  of  Babylon, 
is  to  come  at  the  end  of  seventy  years.    But  it  disastrously  disturbs 


14  JEREMIAH  25.  12.     S 

shall  come  to  pass,  when  seventy  years  are  accompUshed, 


the  connexion  with  15  ff.,  which,  introduced  as  it  is  by  '  For,' 
must  follow  immediately  on  a  prophecy  of  the  overthrow  of  Judah 
and  the  surrounding  peoples.  Moreover,  13  in  its  present  form  is 
exposed  to  additional  objections.  It  is  quite  unexampled  for  the 
prophet  in  the  course  of  his  prophecy  to  refer  to  himself  in  the 
third  person,  and  the  language  implies  that  a  book  of  prophecies 
containing  the  oracle  on  Babylon,  presumably  1-li.  58,  lay  before  the 
writer.  But  this  oracle  on  Babylon  is  not  from  the  pen  of  Jere- 
miah, and  even  li.  59  fF.  contains  a  narrative  from  the  time  of 
Zedekiah,  whereas  our  chapter  belongs  to  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim. 
As  a  whole  then  12-14  must  be  regarded  as  a  later  insertion.  But 
the  question  must  still  be  raised  whether  the  whole  passage  needs 
to  be  struck  out.  While  some  scholars  treat  13  as  itself  an  inser- 
tion within  an  insertion,  Schwally  and  Cornill  have  argued  that 
part  of  it  belongs  to  the  original  structure,  to  which  it  is  also 
referred  by  Rothstein.  It  is  obvious  that  the  closing  words,  with 
their  reference  to  Jeremiah  in  the  third  person,  cannot  be  part  of 
the  prophecy.  But  the  LXX  is  probably  correct  in  taking  them 
as  the  title  of  the  prophecies  against  the  foreign  nations  (xlvi-li), 
which  once  stood  here  in  the  Hebrew  text  as  they  do  now  in  the 
LXX.  If  we  take  out  the  words  *  What  Jeremiah  prophesied 
concerning  the  nations'  (omitting  'all,'  with  the  LXX),  the  rest 
of  the  verse  might  belong  to  Jeremiah's  prophecy  if  we  supposed 
the  original  reference  in  *  that  land  '  to  have  been  to  Judah  rather 
than  to  Babylon.  In  this  case  the  '  book '  will  presumably  be  the 
book  in  which  Jeremiah  had  collected  his  prophecies  during  the 
three  and  twenty  years  of  his  ministry,  i.  e.  the  roll  written  at  his 
dictation  by  Baruch  and  burnt  by  Jehoiakim.  We  may  thus 
assume  that  in  its  original  form  this  section  of  the  chapter  closed 
with  II*,  13**^:  'And  this  whole  land  shall  be  a  desolation,  and 
an  astonishment ;  and  I  will  bring  upon  this  land  all  my  words 
which  I  have  pronounced  against  it,  even  all  that  is  written  in  this 
book.'  We  have  thus  a  conclusion  which  better  corresponds  to 
the  beginning,  in  which  Jeremiah  speaks  of  the  words  he  has  for 
so  long  been  proclaiming  to  his  people.  And  the  vision  of  the 
wine-cup  links  well  to  the  passage  in  this  restored  form. 

12.  The  verse  should  run  in  the  briefer  form  presupposed  by 
the  LXX,  '  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  seventy  years  are 
accomplished,  that  I  will  punish  (Heb.  visit)  that  nation  ;  and  I 
will  make  it  desolate  for  ever.'  The  verse  is  based  on  xxix.  10, 
where  Yahweh  promises  to  '  visit '  His  people,  i.e.  in  mercy.  The 
author  of  this  verse  keeps  the  same  word,  but  uses  it  in  the  sense 
to  'punish.'  The  expression  'desolate  for  ever'  is  literally 
*  perpetual  desolations  j '  it  comes  apparently  from  the  oracle  on 


JEREMIAH  25.  13-15.      SJRSJ  15 

that  I  will  punish  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  that  nation, 
saith  the  Lord,  for  their  iniquity,  and  the  land  of  the 
Chaldeans ;  and  I  will  make  it  ^  desolate  for  ever,  [j]  And  13 
I  will  bring  upon  that  land  all  my  words  which  I  have 
pronounced  against  it,  even  all  that  is  written  in  this 
book,  [R]  which  Jeremiah  hath  prophesied  against  all  the 
nations,  [s]  For  many  nations  and  great  kings  ^  shall  serve  14 
themselves  of  them,  even  of  them :  and  I  will  recom- 
pense them  according  to  their  deeds,  and  according  to 
the  work  of  their  hands. 

[j]  For  thus  saith  the  Lord, the  God  of  Israel,  unto  me:  '5 

*  Heb.  everlasting  desolations. 

^  Or,  have  served  themselves    or,  made  bondmen 

Babylon,  li.  26,  62 :  cf.  xlix,  33,  Ezek.  xxxv.  9  (from  v^^hich  it  may 
have  been  originally  derived). 

13.  See  note  on  12-14. 

14.  Since  the  closing  words  of  13  constitute  in  the  LXX  a  title 
to  xlvi-li,  v^^hich  immediately  follows,  there  is  no  place  for  14  and 
it  is  omitted.  But  inasmuch  as  the  oracles  against  the  foreign 
nations  once  stood  in  the  same  position  in  the  Hebrew  text,  we 
may  infer  that  14  and  12,  which  is  inseparably  connected  with  it, 
were  introduced  into  the  Hebrew  text  after  xlvi-li  had  been 
removed  to  the  end  of  the  book.  14*  is  derived  from  xxvii.  7^ 
Hitzig  took  14^  to  be  the  continuation  of  ii*^,  but  Graf  pointed 
out  in  reply  that  the  expressions  in  it  seemed  to  be  borrowed  from 
the  oracle  on  Babylon,  1.  29,  li.  24:  cf.  1.  15,  li.  6,  56. 

serve  themselves  of  them.  This  expression  occurs  in  xxii. 
13,  where  it  is  rendered  *  to  use  the  service  of; '  it  means  here  to 
employ  them  as  slaves  ;  so  xxvii.  11,  xxx,  8.     See  note  on  11. 

15.  We  now  come  to  the  striking  vision  of  the  wine-cup  of 
Yahweh's  fur}',  which  is  linked  closely  to  the  preceding  section 
by  *  For'  (naturally  omitted  by  the  LXX).  Duhm  recognizes  that 
the  conception  itself  is  worthy  of  a  Jeremiah,  and  that  the  passage 
itself  would  be  if  the  author's  gift  of  expression  had  been  on  a 
level  with  the  conception.  This  objection  may  perhaps  be  met  by 
the  elimination  of  insertions ;  Duhm's  further  objection  that  the 
conception  itself  cannot  be  Jeremiah's,  since  he  was  no  prophet  to 
the  nations,  has  been  sufficiently  dealt  with  already  (see  vol.  i, 
PP-  77>  7^)-  The  giving  of  the  draught  to  the  nations  can  be 
thought  of  only  as  a  transaction  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  since 
an  actual  visit  to  the  nations  is  out  of  the  question,  and  like  the 


i6  JEREMIAH  25.  16-18.     JJS 

Take  the  cup  of  the  wine  of  this  fury  at  my  hand,  and 
cause  all  the  nations,  to  whom  I  send  thee,  to  drink  it. 

16  And  they  shall  drink,  and  reel  to  and  fro,  and  be  mad, 
because  of  the  sword  that  I  will   send   among   them. 

17  Then  took  I  the  cup  at  the  Lord's  hand,  and  made  all 
the  nations  to  drink,  unto  whom  the  Lord  had  sent  me  : 

iS  [JS]  /^z£;/V,  Jerusalem,  and  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  the  kings 

view  that  he  gave  the  wine  to  their  assembled  ambassadors,  could 
occur  only  to  a  degraded  literalism.  It  is  not,  however,  a  mere 
allegory,  but  a  psychic  experience,  in  which  Jeremiah  really  seems 
to  himself  to  be  forcing  the  goblet  on  the  nations  which  he  enu- 
merates. It  thus  falls  into  the  same  category  as  similar  instances 
in  Ezekiel. 

the  wine  of  this  fury.  The  second  noun  is  in  apposition  to 
the  first,  explaining  what  '  the  wine '  really  is.  The  LXX  reads 
*  of  this  unmixed  wine '  (cf.  Ps.  Ixxv.  8),  and  Duhm  and  Erbt 
prefer  this.  Cornill  thinks  no  explanation  was  needed,  and  that 
one  of  the  words  should  be  struck  out.  Since  no  one  would  have 
thought  of  inserting  'wine*  if  the  original  text  had  been  *  cup  of 
fury,'  he  reads  '  take  this  cup  of  wine.'  Rothstein  goes  a  step 
further,  and  reads  simply  '  take  this  cup,'  impoverishing  the  des- 
cription for  the  prosaic  scruple  that  the  cup  does  not  actuallj' 
contain  wine.  He  compares  Isa.  li.  21,  '  drunken,  but  not  with 
wine.' 

16.  The  effects  caused  by  the  drinking  of  this  mystic  wine  are 
now  described.  The  nations  reel  under  the  shock  of  disaster,  and 
are  helpless  in  perplexity  and  dismay.  At  the  close  of  the  verse 
the  figure  is  spoiled  by  the  intrusion  of  the  reality,  if  the  sword 
intended  is  that  of  the  foe ;  and  even  if  it  be  *  the  sword  of  the 
Lord,'  the  unity  of  the  description  is  disturbed  by  this  alien 
element.  It  should  therefore  be  omitted.  It  has  been  inserted 
probably  from  27. 

18-26.  The  following  list  can  hardly  in  its  present  form  be 
attributed  to  Jeremiah.  An  enumeration  of  the  peoples  to  which  the 
cup  was  given  is  quite  in  place,  but  the  list  has  been  swollen  by 
later  additions.  In  20  the  LXX  omits  'and  all  the  kings  of  the 
land  of  Uz  ; '  in  24  either  '  and  all  the  kings  of  Arabia '  or  '  and 
all  the  kings  of  the  mingled  people;'  in  25  'and  all  the  kings  of 
Zimri.'  In  each  case  the  LXX  is  probably  correct.  Since  all  are 
characterized  by  the  phrase  'and  all  the  kings  of,'  Giesebrecht, 
with  the  concurrence  of  Cornill,  uses  this  phrase  as  a  criterion  of 
additions.  The  original  catalogue  he  takes  to  have  included 
Judah,  Egypt,  Philistia,  Edom,  Moab,  Ammon,  Tema,   Buz,  and 


JEREMIAH  25.  iy,2c.     JS  17 

thereof,  and  the  princes  thereof,  to  make  them  a  desola- 
tion, an  astonishment,  an  hissing,  and  a  curse ;    as  it  is 
this  day ;  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt,  and  his  servants,  and  his  19 
princes,  and  all  his  people ;  and  all  the  mingled  people,  20 
and  all  the  kings  of  the  land  of  Uz,  and  all  the  kings  of 
the  land  of  the  Philistines,  and  Ashkelon,  and  Gaza,  and 

'those  that  have  the  corners  of  their  hair  polled.'  In  several 
cases  the  phrase  'all  the  kings  of  has  no  very  intelligible 
meaning,  for  it  is  prefixed  to  cities  or  countries  which  had  only 
one  king.  Besides  we  have  '  all  the  kings  of  the  Philistines ' 
mentioned,  and  then  in  addition  to  them  'Ashkelon,  and  Gaza,  and 
Ekron,  and  the  remnant  of  Ashdod,'  i.e.  Philistia  is  enumerated 
twice. 

18.  The  closing  words,  '  as  it  is  this  day,'  must  be  an  addition, 
made  after  the  State  had  been  overthrown  and  Jerusalem  laid  in 
ruins.  It  is  possible  that  they  were  inserted  by  Jeremiah  himself 
or  Baruch,  but  hardly  probable,  for  they  are  not  in  the  LXX. 
Perhaps  all  after  '  Judah  '  is  an  insertion  ;  '  the  kings  thereof  is 
suspicious.  Cornill,  who  takes  this  view,  thinks  that  originally 
Pharaoh  headed  the  list.  This  would  correspond  to  the  historical 
fact  that  he  was  the  protagonist  in  the  conflict  with  Babylon,  and 
it  was  his  defeat  at  Carchemish  which  formed  the  decisive  turning- 
point  in  the  history  of  the  period.  Judah  had  only  a  subordinate 
part  to  play,  her  fate  depended  on  that  of  Egypt.  If  this  were  the 
original  order,  the  placing  of  Judah  at  the  head  of  the  list  would 
be  due  to  a  scribe  who  did  not  tolerate  that  his  country  should  be 
anything  but  first — even  in  punishment. 

19.  If  the  view  that  '  all  the  kings  of  is  in  each  case  a  sign  of 
later  insertion  is  correct,  Egypt  is  the  only  one  of  the  heathen 
nations  whose  king  is  mentioned.  But  that  is  quite  natural  in 
view  of  the  tremendous  significance  attaching  to  his  overthrow 
(see  preceding  note").  The  princes  are  perhaps  the  petty  kings  of 
Egypt  who  regarded  the  Pharaoh  as  their  suzerain. 

20.  and  all  the  miug'led  people.  This  clause  (deleted  by 
Giesebrecht  and  by  Cheyne,  Enc.  Bib.  3099)  should  go  with  the 
preceding  verse  :  it  includes  the  foreigners  who  had  settled  in 
Egypt,  who  while  retaining  their  own  nationality  were  subject  to 
Egyptian  rule. 

and  all  the  kings  of  the  land  of  Uz.  This  clause  is  omitted 
in  the  LXX,  and  its  position  in  the  enumeration  is  surprising. 
It  is  apparently  an  insertion.  On  the  situation  of  Uz  see  the 
editor's  note  on  Job  i.  i,  also  on  23  in  the  present  chapter.  It 
was  closely  connected  with  Edom. 

and  aU  the  kings  of  the  land  of  the  Philistines.  The  LXX 
II  C 


i8  JEREMIAH  25.  21-23.     JS 

21  Ekron,and  the  remnant  of  Ashdod;  Edom,and  Moab,and 

22  the  children  of  Ammon  ;  and  all  the  kings  of  Tyre,  and 
all  the  kings  of  Zidon,and  the  kings  of  the  ''^isle  which  is  be- 
as  yond  the  sea;  Dedan,and  Tema,and  Buz,  and  all  that  have 

*  fOr,  coastland 

omits  *  the  land  of,'  but  the  whole  clause  is  an  insertion,  since  it 
duplicates  in  a  summary  way  what  follows.  Of  the  five  cities  of 
the  Philistines  Gath  is  not  mentioned.  Amos  (i.  6-8)  similarly 
omits  it,  and  the  same  is  true  of  Zeph.  ii.  4,  Zech.  ix.  5,  6. 

the  remnant  of  Ashdod.  This  Philistine  city  had,  we  learn 
from  Herodotus  (ii.  157),  been  captured  and  destroyed  by 
Psammetichus  (king  of  Egypt  666-610  b.  c.)  about  a  quarter  of 
a  century  previously,  after  a  siege  of  twenty-nine  years.  The 
'  remnant '  means  the  few  miserable  survivors.  '  We  can  imagine 
that  he  would  not  be  disposed  to  lenient  dealings  with  the  town 
upon  its  capture'  (Cheyne,  in  the  Pulpit  Commentary).  The 
town  was  in  existence  again  in  the  age  of  Nehemiah,  who 
complacently  plumes  himself  on  the  ferocity  with  which  he  treated 
his  countrymen  who  had  married  women  of  Ashdod,  and  whose 
*  children  spake  half  in  the  speech  of  Ashdod,  and  could  not  speak 
in  the  Jews'  language  '  (Neh.  xiii.  23  ff.).  The  city  was  captured 
in  the  Maccabean  period  by  Judas  Maccabaeus  (i  Mace.  v.  68), 
andagain  by  Jonathan  (i  Mace.  x.  84),  but  it  is  not  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  reference  is  to  either  of  these  events. 

22.  This  verse  is  struck  out  by  Giesebrecht  and  Cornill  on  the 
ground  already  mentioned,  of  the  formula  '  all  the  kings  of.*  The 
omission  of  Phoenicia  may  seem  surprising,  but  it  is  absent 
from  the  list  in  ix.  25,  and  from  xlvi-li.  The  *  coastland  which 
is  beyond  the  sea '  seems,  on  account  of  its  association  with  Tyre 
and  Zidon,  to  be  the  Phoenician  colonies  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
and  on  its  coasts.  The  LXX  reads  simply  '  the  kings  beyond  the 
sea,' 

23.  Dedan  and  Tema  were  North-Arabian  tribes,  which  are 
mentioned  as  neighbours  in  Isa.  xxi.  13,  14.  The  latter,  which  is 
also  referred  to  in  Job  vi.  19,  where  it  is  coupled  with  Sheba,  is 
according  to  Gen.  xxv.  15  an  Ishmaelite  clan.  Its  home  was 
about  250  miles  to  the  south-east  of  Edom,  and  is  to  be  identified 
with  Teima.  Dedan  (xlix.  8,  where  it  is  connected  with  Edom  :  cf. 
Ezek.  xxv.  13)  is  described  in  Gen.  x.  7  along  with  Sheba,  with 
which  it  is  elsewhere  associated  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  13),  as  a  Hamitic 
people  of  Cushite  stock.  It  is  referred  to  as  a  trading  people  in 
Ezek,  xxvii.  15,  20.  Buz,  according  to  Gen.  xxii.  21,  is  represented 
as  a  son  of  Nahor  and  brother  of  Uz,  and  Gen.  x.  23  makes  Uz 
a  son   of  Aram.     These  data  point  to  Naharina  as  the  home  of 


JEREMIAH  25.  24,  25.     JS  S  19 

the  corners  of  their  hair  polled  ;  [S]  and  all  the  kings  of  24 
Arabia,  and  all  the  kings   of  the  mingled  people  that 
dwell  in  the  wilderness  ;  and  all  the  kings  of  Zimri,  and  all  25 

both.  But  other  data  connect  Uz  with  Edom  (especially  Gen. 
xxxvi.  28,  Lam.  iv.  21,  and  the  fact  that  Job's  friend  Eliphaz  was 
a  Temanite),  and  the  present  verse  strongly  favours  a  similar 
situation  for  Buz,  to  which  Elihu  belonged  (Job  xxxii.  2%  On 
the  whole  question  see  the  note  on  Job  i.  i.  For  the  'corner- 
clipped'  people  see  on  ix.  26. 

24.  In  the  unpointed  Hebrew  text  *  and  all  the  kings  of  Arabia  ' 
is  identical  with  '  and  all  the  kings  of  the  mingled  people,'  so  that 
of  the  two  clauses  one  should  be  struck  out  as  due  to  mistaken 
repetition.  The  LXX  read  only  one,  taking  it  in  the  sense  of  the 
latter.  '  The  mingled  people '  is  a  term  difficult  to  interpret  in 
this  connexion  ;  on  the  analogy  of  20  it  should  mean  people  of 
foreign  stock  who  lived  among  the  tribes  just  mentioned.  But  we 
should  adopt  the  other  clause,  reading  the  verse  '  And  all  the  kings 
of  Arab  that  dwell  in  the  wilderness.'  The  rendering  *  Arabia ' 
is  unfortunate,  since  all  that  is  covered  by  the  term  here  is  one  or 
more  tribes  in  North  Arabia.  It  never  in  the  O.T.  means  Arabia 
in  our  sense  of  the  term.  We  may  perhaps  illustrate  this  passage 
from  Isa.  xxi.  13,  but  it  is  dubious  whether  the  word  there  is 
a  proper  name.  The  whole  verse  is  treated  as  an  insertion  by 
Cornill ;  Giesebrecht  retains  *  and  the  Arabs  who  dwell  in  the 
wilderness.' 

25,  26.  The  rest  of  the  description  is  struck  out  by  Giesebrecht 
and  Cornill,  not  merely  on  account  of  the  formula  'and  all  the 
kings  of,'  but  to  some  extent  on  the  LXX  evidence,  and  largely 
on  the  ground  of  contents.  The  wider  and  wider  sweep  of  the 
enumeration  stamps  the  verses  as  coloured  by  the  later  eschatology. 

and  all  the  kings  of  Zimri.  This  is  absent  in  the  LXX. 
Zimri  is  quite  unknown  ;  it  has  commonly  been  identified  with 
Zimran,  the  son  of  Abraham  and  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  2).  But 
this  is  very  dubious,  nor  do  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  give  us  any 
trustworthy  information.  Curiously  it  is  marked  as  east  of  the 
Tigris  on  the  map  of  Syria,  Assyria,  and  Babylonia  in  the  Enc. 
Bib.,  and  on  the  map  of  Mesopotamia.  Duhm  makes  the  interesting 
suggestion  that  the  word  may  be  a  cypher  for  a  name  at  which 
the  writer  only  dared  to  hint,  such  as  '■  Romans,'  which  has  the 
same  numerical  value.  This,  however,  would  imply  a  very  late 
date  for  the  insertion,  and  although  we  have  a  cypher  in  the  next 
verse,  it  is  not  natural  to  look  for  one  here.  If  the  text  is  correct, 
we  must  resign  ourselves  to  ignorance.  Gomer  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  6) 
would  be  an  easy  emendation,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  would 
be  suitable  here,  in  spite  of  the  eschatological  hue  of  the  passage. 
C  2 


20  JEREMIAH  25.  26.     S 

26  the  kings  of  Elam,  and  all  the  kings  of  the  Medes ;  and 
all  the  kings  of  the  north,  far  and  near,  one  with  another  ; 
and  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  which  are  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth  :  and  the  king  of  ^  Sheshach  shall  drink 

*  According  to  ancient  tradition,  a  cypher  for  BabcL    See  ch.  li.  41. 

Since  this  note  was  written  the  editor  has  seen  that  Rost  and 
Peiser  had  previously  suggested  the  same  emendation  in  the  form 

*  Gomeri '  or  '  Gimirri.' 

Elam:  see  on  xlix.  34.  It  lay  beyond  the  Tigris,  east  of 
Babylonia,  south  of  Assyria  and  Media,  and  reaching  to  the 
Persian  Gulf  on  the  south.  Its  combination  with  Media  here  is 
interesting  in  the  light  of  Isa.  xxi.  2,  which  was  probably  written 
shortly  before  the  capture  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus.    Cf.  also  Isa.  xxii.  6. 

all  the  king's  of  the  north.  This  is  not  a  very  suitable  addition, 
since  the  *  families  of  the  north '  are  those  who  are  the  agents  of 
Divine  vengeance,  but  it  is  accounted  for  by  the  eschatological 
interest,  which  is  still  more  evident  in  the  following  clause  in 
which  a  universal  judgement  is  announced,  whereas  a  selection  of 
nations  is  implied  in  the  prophet's  commission  ;  *  the  nations  to 
whom  I  send  thee'  (15,  cf.  17). 

one  with  another.  The  words  may  be  taken  with  '  far  and 
near '  to  mean  whether  they  are  near  to  or  far  from  one  another, 
or  they  may  mean  one  after  another. 

of  the  world.  The  LXX  omits  this.  It  is  not  only  unneces- 
sary but  ungrammatical  in  the  Hebrew. 

and  the  king"  of  Sheshach  shall  drink  after  them.  Sheshach 
is  a  secret  mode  of  writing  Babel :  cf.  li.  41.  The  cypher  employed 
here  and  in  li.  i,  41  is  known  as  Atbash,  since  the  last  letter  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet  was  interchanged  with  the  first,  the  last  but  one 
with  the  second,  the  last  but  two  with  the  third,  and  so  on.  When 
thus  interpreted  Sheshach  is  read  Babel.  It  is  employed  here 
either  because  at  the  time  this  verse  was  inserted  it  was  dangerous 
to  speak  of  the  fall  of  Babylon  in  plain  language,  or  because  the 
writer  had  the  apocalyptic  fondness  for  mysterious  designations. 
In  view  of  the  freedom  with  which  Babylon  is  mentioned  in 
prophecies  of  its  downfall  towards  the  close  of  the  exile,  and 
especially  of  the  use  of  Babel  in  the  same  breath  with  Sheshach  in 
li.  41,  the  former  motive  seems  not  to  have  operated.  We  may 
accordingly  assume  that  it  was  chosen  under  the  latter  impulse, 
but  also  because  the  name  contained  in  itself  a  congenial  sugges- 
tion. To  the  Hebrew  ear  the  name  would  suggest  *  humiliation.' 
The  clause  cannot  well  have  belonged  to  Jeremiah's  original 
prophccj',  though  it  may  be  granted  that  some  of  the  objections 
which  may  be  urged  against  la,  14  are  not  applicable  here,  and  it 


JEREMIAH  25.  a-,  2S.     S  21 

after  them.     And  thou  shalt  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  37 
the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  Drink  ye,  and  be 
drunken,  and  spue,  and  fall,  and  rise  no  more,  because 
of  the  sword  which  I  will  send  among  you.    And  it  shall  28 
be,  if  they  refuse  to  take  the  cup  at  thine  hand  to  drink, 
then  shalt  thou  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of 

is  by  no  means  incredible  that  Jeremiah,  who  anticipated  a 
restoration  for  his  people  after  seventy  years,  should  have 
appended  a  prophecy  of  Babylon's  overthrow.  It  is  not  likely, 
however,  that  he  would  have  done  so  at  the  time  when  the 
prophecy  was  first  written,  or  on  its  republication  after  the  des- 
truction of  the  roll.  It  is,  moreover,  probable  that  the  clause  was 
not  written  by  Jeremiah  at  all.  The  objection  that  after  the 
enumeration  of  the  lands  which  have  to  drink  the  cup  has  been 
closed  by  the  general  statements  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  verse,  it 
is  unfitting  that  a  definite  kingdom  should  be  mentioned,  is  of 
little  moment.  For  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  if  Babylon 
is  the  instrument  of  this  universal  judgement,  the  king  of  Babylon 
must  be  the  last  to  drink  ;  and  it  is  the  very  opposite  of  unfitting 
that  he  should  be  definitely  mentioned  at  the  close,  corresponding 
to  Pharaoh  at  the  beginning  of  the  list.  And  this  argument  has 
no  weight  if  we  have  already  denied  to  Jeremiah  the  rest  of  the 
verse.  All  we  could  infer  from  it,  if  it  were  sound,  would  be  that 
the  last  clause  of  26  was  not  from  the  same  hand  as  the  rest  of  the 
verse  ;  but  unless  we  claim  the  earlier  part  of  the  verse  for  Jere- 
miah, it  has  no  bearing  on  the  Jeremianic  origin  of  its  conclusion. 
Nevertheless  this  is  rendered  improbable  by  its  absence  from  the 
LXX,  by  the  connexion  of  the  passage  with  1-li,  and  by  the  use  of 
a  cypher  which  smacks  of  apocalyptic  rather  than  prophecy,  and 
is  unexampled  in  Jeremiah's  genuine  writings.  How  old  the 
Atbash  cypher  is  we  do  not  know. 

2'7-29.  It  is  surprising,  after  we  have  learnt  in  17  that  the 
prophet  had  made  all  the  nations  drink  to  whom  Yahweh  had 
sent  him,  to  find  the  drinking  regarded  as  something  still  lying  in 
the  future,  which  the  nations  may  try  to  resist.  Moreover  from  17 
onwards  Jeremiah  is  the  speaker,  while  here  it  is  Yahweh,  though 
no  indication  of  the  change  is  given.  It  would  largely  meet  these 
difficulties  if  we  could  transpose  these  verses  and  bring  them  into 
connexion  with  15,  16.  And  the  points  of  contact  between  16  and 
27  may  seem  to  favour  this.  "We  must  not  press  the  *  unaesthetic 
description  '  in  27  against  Jeremianic  authorship,  in  view  of  such 
passages  as  Isa.  xxviii.  8,  Hos.  vii.  5,  to  say  nothing  of  2  Pet.  ii.  3, 
and  the  caution  we  need  constantly  to  bear  in  mind  that  we  must 
not  apply  our  canons  of  taste  to  ancient  authors.     But  28,  29  can 


22  JEREMIAH  25.  29,  30.     S 

29  hosts :  Ye  shall  surely  drink.  For,  lo,  I  begin  to  work 
evil  at  the  city  which  is  called  by  my  name,  and  should  ye 
be  utterly  unpunished  ?  Ye  shall  not  be  unpunished  :  for 
I  will  call  for  a  sword  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 

30  earth,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.    Therefore  prophesy  thou 

hardly  be  from  the  pen  of  Jeremiah.  The  thought  that  the 
nations  might  refuse  to  drink  is  in  itself  strange,  in  view  of  the 
visionary  character  of  the  experience.  We  have  at  the  close  of  29 
the  same  universal  scope  of  the  judgement  which  we  have  met 
with  in  26.  But  even  more  incompatible  with  Jeremiah's  attitude 
is  the  point  of  view  from  which  29  is  written.  Is  it  credible  that 
the  prophet,  who  proclaims  with  such  tremendous  energy  the 
inexcusable  character  of  Judah's  sin,  and  represents  it  as  unparal- 
leled among  the  heathen  (ii.  10,  11),  should  have  said  that  since 
Judah  was  punished,  the  nations  should  not  escape  ?  The  language 
suggests,  if  it  does  not  imply,  a  favouritism  towards  Israel  which 
the  pre-exilic  prophets  from  Amos  onwards  earnestly  oppose.  It 
is  written  rather  from  the  standpoint  represented  by  the  Second 
Isaiah,  from  which  Judah  was  regarded  as  relatively  innocent  in 
contrast  with  the  heathen,  though  the  great  prophet  of  the  exile 
drew  a  different  inference.  He  says  that  the  sufferings  of  the 
comparatively  innocent'  Israel  are  vicariously  borne  to  atone  for 
the  guilt  of  the  heathen.  The  author  of  28,  29  regards  it  as 
intolerable  that  Judah  should  suffer  alone  ;  if  Judah  is  punished, 
a  fortiori  the  rest  of  the  world.  In  xlix.  12  the  thought  recurs  in 
a  form  still  more  extreme.  But  28,  29  cannot  stand  alone,  they 
need  27.  Verses  27-29,  however,  cannot  very  well  be  thrust  in 
before  17  ff.,  and  the  last  clause  of  27  is  as  inconsistent  with  Jere- 
miah's authorship  in  this  verse  as  in  16.  Accordingly  it  is  best  to 
regard  27-29  as  a  later  insertion  unskilfully  made  at  an  inappro- 
priate point. 

29.  which  is  called  by  my  name :  see  vii.  10. 

30-38.  A  more  poetical  style  is  here  resumed,  but  grave 
doubts  may  be  urged  against  Jeremiah's  authorship  of  the  passage. 
It  is  very  imitative  in  character,  and  the  eschatological  tendency  is 
very  pronounced. 

30.  The  opening  of  the  poem  seems  to  have  been  imitated  from 
Amos  i.  2,  '  Yahweh  shall  roar  from  Zion ,  and  utter  his  voice  from 
Jerusalem '  (cf,  Joel  iii.  16).  Amos  continues,  '  and  the  pastures 
of  the  shepherds  shall  mourn,  and  the  top  of  Carmel  shall  wither.' 
This  may  have  suggested  the  word  rendered  '  fold  '  (marg.  '  pas- 
ture') and  the  mention  of  the  'shepherds'  later  in  the  passage. 
Here,  however,  Yahweh  utters  His  lion-like  roar  '  from  on  high,' 
*from  His  holy  habitation,'  i.e.  from  His  heavenly  temple.     He 


JEREMIAH  25.  31,  32.     S  23 

against  them  all  these  words,  and  say  unto  them,  The 
Lord  shall  roar  from  on  high,  and  utter  his  voice  from 
his  holy  habitation ;  he  shall  mightily  roar  against  his 
'^fold;  he  shall  give  a  shout,  as  they  that  tread  the 
grapes^  against  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  A  noise  31 
shall  come  even  to  the  end  of  the  earth ;  for  the  Lord 
hath  a  controversy  with  the  nations,  he  will  plead  with  all 
flesh ;  as  for  the  wicked,  he  will  give  them  to  the  sword, 
saith  the  Lord. 

Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  Behold,  evil  shall  go  32 
*  Or,  pasture 

thunders  against  His  pasture  or  homestead,  i.  e.  the  land  of 
Judah,  where  His  flock  is  feeding.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  verse 
the  figure  changes  and  the  judgement  embraces  all  the  earth. 
Instead  of  the  lion  roaring  against  the  homestead,  we  have  the 
vintage  shout  of  the  grape  traders.  The  word  rendered  'shout' 
which  bears  this  particular  application  is  used  similarly  in  the 
oracle  on  Moab,  Isa.  xvi.  10,  and  in  its  expansion  Jer.  xlviii.  33. 
Here  it  is  a  vintage  shout,  but  Yahweh  is  treading  human  grapes, 
and  the  wine  is  the  blood  of  men,  as  in  Lam.  i.  15  and  the 
powerful  but  terrible  description  of  the  judgement  on  Edom  in  Isa. 
Ixiii.  1-6.  See  further  on  xlviii.  33.  According  to  the  present 
text,  it  is  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  that  are  in  Yahweh's 
winepress,  but  Duhm  may  be  right  in  regarding  this  clause,  which 
has  no  parallel  line,  as  an  insertion.  In  any  case  the  universal 
scope  of  the  judgement  is  attested  by  what  follows. 

31.  Cf.  Isa.  iii.  13,  14,  The  noise  is  apparently  the  crash  of 
battle  which  resounds  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The  last  clause 
does  not  mean  that  the  wicked  among  the  heathen  are  to  be  given 
to  the  sword,  for  the  judgement  falls  on  the  heathen  as  such. 
Judah  is  involved  in  the  catastrophe,  but  possibly  the  writer  may 
intend  to  suggest  that  righteous  Jews  will  not  be  slain.  For 
'  plead  '  we  should  substitute  '  contend  '  (see  ii.  9). 

32.  The  latter  part  of  the  verse  is  taken  from  vi.  22,  but  'tem- 
pest '  is  substituted  for  '  nation  : '  cf.  xxiii.  19,  xxx.  23.  Duhm 
thinks  the  meaning  is  that  at  the  instigation  of  Yahweh  one 
people  falls  on  another,  till  all  are  destroyed.  But  perhaps  the 
words  mean  no  more  than  that  the  storm  of  judgement  strikes  one 
nation  after  another.  The  instrument  of  judgement  is  a  foe  from 
the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth,  a  phrase  which  probably  bears  a 
different  sense  here  than  in  vi.  22,  the  author's  geographical  hori- 
zon being  more  remote.    He  has  no  definite  people  in  his  mind, 


24  JEREMIAH  25.  33-35.     S 

forth  from  nation  to  nation,  and  a  great  tempest  shall  be 

33  raised  up  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth.  And  the 
slain  of  the  Lord  shall  be  at  that  day  from  one  end  of  the 
earth  even  unto  the  other  end  of  the  earth  :  they  shall 
not   be  lamented,  neither  gathered,  nor  buried;   they 

34  shall  be  dung  upon  the  face  of  the  ground.  Howl,  ye 
shepherds,  and  cry ;  and  wallow  yourselves  in  asheSj  ye 
principal  of  the  flock  :  for  the  days  of  your  slaughter  are 
fully  come,  ^  and  I  will  break  you  in  pieces,  and  ye  shall 

35  fall  like  a  pleasant  vessel.     And  ^the  shepherds  shall 

■  Or,  and  I  will  disperse  you  Many  ancient  versions  read,  and 
your  dispersions.  ^  Heb.  flight  shall  perish  from  the  shepherds, 

and  escape  from  dr'c. 

but  it  was  natural  to  suppose  that  the  unknown  races  which  dwelt 
on  the  earth's  rim  might  play  the  part  the  Scythians  were  expected 
in  earlier  periods  to  play. 

33.  In  *  that  day,'  the  apocalyptic  Day  of  the  Lord,  *  the  slain 
of  Yahweh'  (Isa.  Ixvi.  16)  will  lie  strewn  on  the  ground,  right 
across  the  world ;  none  will  survive  to  utter  the  lamentation,  to 
perform  the  last  offices. 

34.  The  '  shepherds '  are,  as  often  elsewhere,  the  rulers ;  the 
*  principal  of  the  flock  '  are  their  chief  subjects. 

wallow  yourselves :  cf.  vi.  26. 

and  I  will  break  you  In  pieces.  The  form  in  the  text  is 
anomalous,  and  the  versions  give  no  satisfactory  sense.  Probably 
'  to  break  in  pieces  '  is  the  sense  intended  rather  than  'to  scatter,' 
which  is  unsuitable  to  the  context,  while  the  alternative  sense 
does  suit  the  reference  to  the  pleasant  vessel.  Since  the  latter, 
however,  is  due  to  a  textual  corruption  (see  next  note),  we  should 
probably  strike  out  the  word,  which  is  not  read  by  the  LXX, 

a  pleasant  vessel.  The  shattering  of  a  costly  vessel  is  in 
itself  a  very  appropriate  metaphor,  but  it  can  hardly  be  correct 
here,  since  it  introduces  an  incongruous  element,  and  this  applies 
also  to  Graetz's  emendation  '  a  vessel  of  clay  '  (cf.  xviii,  xiii.  13, 
14).  The  passage  throughout  employs  the  metaphor  of  a  flock  and 
its  shepherds,  and  the  LXX  reads  'rams'  instead  of  'vessel.' 
Two  easy  emendations  of  the  Hebrew  would  be  possible  on  this 
basis,  but  it  would  be  better  to  read  with  Duhm  '  rams  of  slaugh- 
ter.' He  compares  '  flock  of  slaughter,'  Zech.  xi.  4,  7,  all  the  more 
that  he  thinks  this  portion  of  Zechariah  served  the  author  as  a 
model  in  other  respects. 
36.  Based  on  Amos  ii.  14. 


JEREMIAH  25.  36— 2G.  i.     SB  25 

have  no  way  to  flee,  nor  the  principal  of  the  flock  to 
escape.     A  voice  of  the  cry  of  the  shepherds,  and  the  l^ 
howling  of  the  principal  of    the  flock  !   for  the  Lord 
layeth  waste  their  pasture.     And  the  peaceable  folds  are  37 
brought  to  silence  because  of  the  fierce  anger  of  the 
Lord.     He  hath  forsaken  his  covert,  as  the  lion  :    for  3S 
their  land  is  become  an  astonishment  because  of  "-  the 
fierceness  of  the  oppressing  szvordf  and  because  of  his 
fierce  anger. 

[B]  In  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  the  son  26 

*  fOr,  according  to  some  ancient  authorities,  the  oppressing 
sword     See  ch.  xlvi.  16. 

36.  Cf.  Zech.  xi.  3. 

38.  The  text  seems  to  mean  either  that  Yahweh  has  been  forced 

by  the  devastation  of  Judah  to  abandon  His  land,  just  as  the  lion 
is  forced  by  the  destruction  of  his  lair,  or  that  He  has  left  His  'holy 
habitation  '  to  lay  waste  the  earth,  as  a  lion  leaves  his  lair  to  attack 
the  flock.  But  the  thought  is  in  either  case  very  imperfectly 
expressed,  and  we  should,  with  most  recent  commentators,  strike 
out  the  particle  of  comparison  and  read  'the  lion  leaves  his 
covert'  or  'lions  leave  their  covert,'  i.e.  the  lions  are  forced  out 
of  their  lairs  by  the  destruction  of  the  jungle  :  cf.  Zech.  xi.  3. 

the  fierceness  of  the  oppressing'  sword.  The  Hebrew  is 
incorrect.  The  margin  gives  the  true  reading,  which  is  that  of  the 
LXX  andTargum  and  some  Hebrew  MSS.,  is  attested  by  xlvi.  16, 
1.  i6,  and  involves  a  very  slight  change  in  the  Hebrew. 

and  becanse  of  his  fierce  anger.  This  clause  is  omitted  in 
the  LXX,  but  is  required  b}-  the  parallelism.  The  pronoun  has, 
it  is  true,  no  antecedent ;  perhaps  none  was  felt  to  be  needed  ;  but 
the  defect  is  readily  remedied  if  we  read  '  the  fierce  anger  of 
Yahweh,'  as  in  37,  which  with  the  abbreviated  form  of  the  Divine 
name  would  be  very  like  the  present  text. 

xxvi.  Jeremiah,  at  Grave  Risk  of  his  Life,  Threatens 

THAT   THE    TeMPLE    WILL    BE    DESTROYED. 

With  this  chapter  we  begin  a  series  of  extracts  from  the 
biography  of  Jeremiah,  which  we  may  with  confidence  assign  to 
Baruch,  and  which  with  some  interruptions  extend  to  xlv.  This 
is  not  to  say  that  the  biography  has  not  been  used  for  earlier 
sections  of  the  book,  but  from  this  point  it  is  the  leading  source. 


26  JEREMIAH  26.  r.     B 

of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  came  this  word  from  the  Lord, 

The  narrative  in  the  present  chapter  refers,  as  most  critics  recog- 
nize, to  the  same  occasion  as  that  on  which  the  address  recorded 
in  vii  was  delivered.  Both  contain  the  emphatic  declaration  that 
unless  the  people  amend  their  ways  Yahweh  will  make  the 
Temple  like  Shiloh,  and  both  represent  the  address  as  delivered 
to  all  Judah  at  the  Temple  itself.  While  vii  reproduces  the  address 
itself,  xxvi  is  mainly  occupied  with  the  circumstances  in  which  it 
was  delivered,  especially  its  sequel.  It  is  of  great  importance  for 
the  light  it  throws  on  the  prophet's  fidelity  to  his  mission,  which 
led  him  to  face  the  extreme  consequences,  and  on  the  attitude  to 
the  temple  which  characterized  the  official  and  popular  religion  of 
the  time.  The  chronological  note  at  the  beginning  is  valuable,  in 
view  of  the  weighty  character  of  the  address.  There  is  no 
occasion  to  doubt  its  accuracy,  according  to  which  we  should 
date  the  event  in  608  B.C.  or  thereabouts.  Duhm  thinks  of 
Jehoiakim's  coronation.  At  that  time  the  crisis  was  over.  Josiah, 
it  is  true,  was  dead,  Jehoahaz  dethroned,  the  suzerainty  of  Egypt 
established.  Yet  the  State  remained,  the  dynasty  of  David  held  the 
throne,  the  people  were  still  suffered  to  dwell  in  their  own  country 
and  their  own  homes.  The  Temple  stood,  they  could  still  look  at 
it  as  a  fetish  guaranteeing  their  security  (vii.  4),  and  declare  that 
they  were  delivered  (vii.  10).  A  somewhat  later  date,  however, 
would  also  fit  these  conditions.  The  coronation  day  would  not 
be  the  time  most  appropriate  for  such  an  address,  and  had  it  been 
delivered  then,  we  might  have  expected  Baruch  to  mention  it 
explicitly. 

xxvi.  1-6.  Yahweh  bids  the  prophet  stand  in  the  Temple  court 
and  proclaim  to  Judah  His  word,  since  repentance  may  avert  the 
punishment  He  purposes  to  inflict.  He  is  to  tell  them  that  unless 
they  hearken  to  His  word.  He  will  make  the  Temple  like  Shiloh, 
and  Jerusalem  a  curse  to  all  nations. 

7-9.  When  Jeremiah  had  delivered  his  message,  the  priests  and 
prophets  threatened  him  with  death  for  proclaiming  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple  and  city. 

10-15.  The  priests  and  prophets  accuse  Jeremiah  to  the  princes 
and  people  as  worthy  of  death  for  prophesying  against  Jerusalem. 
Jeremiah  replies  that  Yahweh  has  bidden  him  speak  all  these 
words.  He  exhorts  them  to  amend  their  life,  in  which  case 
Yahweh  will  repent  of  the  evil  He  has  spoken.  As  for  himself, 
they  must  act  as  they  think  well  ;  only  if  they  kill  him  they  will 
bring  innocent  blood  on  themselves  and  the  city,  since  all  he  has 
spoken  he  has  been  commanded  by  Yahweh  to  speak. 

16-19.  The  princes  and  the  people  decide  that  Jeremiah  is  not 
worthy  of  death,  since  he  has  spoken  in  Yahweh's  name.     Some 


JEREMIAH  2G.  2,  3.     B  27 

saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Stand  in  the  court  of  the  2 
Lord's  house,  and  speak  unto  all  the  cities  of  Judah, 
which  come  to  worship  in  the  Lord's  house,  all  the  words 
that  I  command  thee  to  speak  unto  them ;  keep  not  back 
a  word.     It  may  be  they  will  hearken,  and  turn  every  3 

of  the  elders  remind  the  people  that  Micah  had  foretold  tlie 
destruction  of  the  city  and  Temple.  But  Hezekiah,  so  far  from 
putting  him  to  death,  besought  Yahweh's  mercy  and  the  punish- 
ment was  averted. 

20-24,  Uriah  similarly  prophesied  against  Jerusalem  and  Judah. 
Jehoiakim  sought  to  kill  him,  but  he  escaped  into  Egypt. 
Thereupon  Jehoiakim  sent  to  Egypt  to  fetch  him,  and  when  he 
was  brought  back  killed  him,  Ahikam,  however,  protected 
Jeremiah,  so  that  he  was  not  put  to  death. 

1.  It  is  characteristic  of  Baruch  to  insert  dates  at  the  beginning 
of  his  narratives,  so  that  we  are  far  better  informed  with  reference 
to  the  time  at  which  many  of  the  events  occurred  than  with 
reference  to  the  dates  at  which  several  of  the  discourses  were 
uttered, 

came  this  word.  The  Syriac  adds  ^  to  Jeremiah.*  The  LXX 
agrees  with  the  Hebrew  in  omitting  it,  and  its  insertion  by  the 
Syriac  is  easy  to  account  for,  since  the  passage  is  abrupt  without 
it ;  but  this  very  abruptness  is  itself  a  reason  for  regarding  the 
words  as  original,  and  their  omission  as  due  to  accident. 

2.  the  court  of  the  LORD'S  house:  cf.  xix.  14. 

unto  all  the  cities  of  Judah.  We  should  probably  strike  out 
*  the  cities  of,'  with  the  LXX  ;  it  seems  to  be  a  reminiscence  of 
xi,  6.  In  vii.  2  we  have  '  Hear  the  word  of  Yahweh,  all  Judah.' 
The  occasion  was  apparently  a  festival  when  the  people  from  the 
country  districts  and  other  towns  of  Judah  came  up  to  Jerusalem 
and  assembled  at  the  Temple.  To  the  people,  thus  trusting,  in  spite 
of  their  recent  disasters,  in  the  Temple  as  the  guarantee  of 
Yahweh's  presence  and  protection,  the  prophet  is  sent  with  his 
unwelcome  message. 

keep  not  back  a  word.  As  the  sequel  showed,  the  message 
was  one  which  the  prophet  could  deliver  only  at  the  risk  of  his 
life.  He  was  therefore  exposed  to  the  temptation  of  modifj'ing  or 
omitting  the  sterner  portions  of  it.  Accordingly  in  this  instance 
the  warning  is  repeated,  which  he  had  received  as  a  general 
instruction  at  the  outset  of  his  ministry,  '  speak  unto  them  all  that 
I  command  thee'  (i.  17).  For  the  expression  here  (literally  as 
A,V.  *  diminish  not  a  word  ')  cf.  Dcut.  iv.  2,  xii,  32, 

3.  turn  every  man  from  his  evil  way.  Observe  the  individu- 
alizing form  of  the  expression. 


28  JEREMIAH  2G.  4-6.     B 

man  from  his  evil  way  ;  that  I  may  repent  me  of  the  evil, 
which  I  purpose  to  do  unto  them  because  of  the  evil  of 

4  their  doings.  And  thou  shalt  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  :    If  ye  will  not  hearken  to  me,  to  walk  in 

5  my  law,  which  I  have  set  before  you,  to  hearken  to  the 
words  of  my  servants  the  prophets,  whom  I  send  unto 
you,  even  rising  up  early  and  sending  them,  but  ye  have 

6  not  hearkened  ;  then  will  I  make  this  house  like  Shiloh, 


that  Z  may  repent  me.  Even  now  repentance  and  reform 
may  avert  the  meditated  judgement.  For  the  principle  cf.  xviii.  8, 
and  its  most  beautiful  expression  in  the  Book  of  Jonah.  Ezekiel 
applies  it  to  the  individual  (Ezek.  xviii.  21-23,  27,  28,  xxxiii.  11- 
20).  The  anthropomorphic  assertion  of  God's  repentance  is  not 
uncommon  in  the  Old  Testament  from  Gen.  vi.  6  onwards. 

4-6.  Duhm  says  that  Baruch  could  not  have  written  a  single 
word  of  these  verses.  The  reason  seems  to  be  that  Jeremiah 
could  not  have  made  the  deliverance  of  the  people  dependent  on 
obedience  to  the  Law,  in  view  of  what  he  says  in  viii.  8,  9,  and 
Baruch  also  must  have  known  that  the  audience,  and  the  priests 
and  prophets  in  particular,  were  the  most  zealous  adherents  of  the 
Law.  It  may  be  granted  that  at  the  beginning  of  Jehoiakim's 
reign  Jeremiah  would  probably  not  have  regarded  an  adhesion  to 
Deuteronomy  as  completely  satisfying  his  religious  ideal.  He  had, 
we  may  well  believe,  been  disillusioned  as  to  the  value  of  the 
Reformation.  Yet  the  religious  and  moral  requirements  of 
Deuteronomy  as  distinguished  from  the  ritual  regulations  must 
have  still  seemed  to  him  largely  valid,  and  if  we  can  trust,  as  in 
the  present  writer's  judgement  we  confidently  may,  the  report  of 
the  address  in  vii,  we  have  there  a  catalogue  of  the  sins  of  Judah, 
which  obedience  to  the  Deuteronomic  Law  would  have  brought  to 
an  end.  We  may  then  regard  the  words  as  quite  genuine,  even 
on  the  assumption  that  *  my  law '  refers  to  the  Book  of  the  Law 
on  which  the  Reformation  was  based.  But  this  interpretation  may 
not  be  necessary.  The  parallel  clause,  '  to  hearken  to  the  words 
of  my  servants  the  prophets,'  probably  provides  us  with  the  true 
explanation,  so  that  we  should  take  the  word  rendered  '  law '  in 
the  earlier  non-technical  sense  of  instruction,  as  in  Isa.  i.  10.  where 
'the  word  of  Yahweh'  is  parallel  to  '  the  instruction  of  our  God,' 
and  the  reference  is  to  the  prophetic  utterance  which  follows. 

5.  rising*  up  early  and  seudlnef :  cf.  vii.  13,  and  elsewhere. 

6.  like  SMloh  :  see  vii.  12-14. 


JEREMIAH  26.  7,  s.     B  29 

and  will   make   this  city  a  curse  to  all   the   nations  of 
the  earth.     And  the  priests  and  the  prophets  and  all  7 
the   people   heard   Jeremiah   speaking   these  words    in 
the  house  of  the  Lord.     And  it  came  to  pass,  when  8 


a  curse  to  all  the  nations.  The  meaning  is  not,  of  course, 
that  the  ruined  cit\-  will  prove  a  curse  to  the  nations,  but  that  it 
will  furnish  them  with  so  telling  an  example  of  utter  destruction 
that  they  will  employ  it  in  their  imprecations  of  disaster  on  their 
enemies,  invoking  on  them  a  destruction  similar  to  that  which  had 
befallen  Jerusalem.  This  forms  a  contrast  to  the  promise,  *  In  thee 
shdl  all  the  families  of  the  earth  bless  themselves '  (Gen.  xii. 
3  :  cf.  xxii.  18),  which  means  that  in  their  invocations  of  blessing 
upon  themselves  the  nations  will  utter  the  wish  that  they  may 
be  as  blessed  as  Abraham  (cf.  iv.  2). 

7.  Jeremiah  had  taken  up  a  position  in  which  the  whole  of  those 
who  had  gathered  for  the  assembly  at  the  Temple  could  hear  his 
words.  This  audience  included,  in  addition  to  the  great  body  of 
the  people,  the  official  representatives  of  religion,  the  priests  and 
prophets,  but  not  the  princes  (see  lo'. 

8.  Jeremiah  was  heard  without  interruption  to  the  end.  This 
would  be  due  not  so  much  to  the  reverence  in  which  the  people 
held  him,  as  to  the  fact  that  their  dearest  prejudices  were  not 
violated  apparently  till  the  close  of  the  address.  Denunciation  of 
sin  and  threat  of  punishment  were  quite  in  order ;  Jeremiah  was 
following  here  the  path  already  taken  b}-  his  predecessors  and  him- 
self. To  predict  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  and  Jerusalem  was  to 
touch  the  susceptibilities  of  the  people  in  the  tenderest  point:  cf. 
vii.  4.  That  it  was  bitterly  resented  by  priests  and  prophets  goes 
without  saying;  to  them  it  would  seem  to  be  blasphemy,  the 
penalty  for  which  was  death  :  cf.  the  case  of  Stephen  (Actsvi,  vii). 
The  statement  that '  all  the  people  '  joined  the  priests  and  prophets 
in  the  arrest  of  Jeremiah  and  threat  of  the  death-penalty  creates 
a  difficulty.  According  to  11,  the  priests  and  prophets  alone  lay 
the  charge  against  him,  and  the  people  are  coupled  with  the  princes 
as  those  before  whom  the  accusation  is  brought ;  and  similarly  in 
12-15  Jeremiah  treats  the  people  as  judges  rather  than  accusers. 
In  16  they  unite  with  the  princes  in  giving  a  verdict  of  acquittal. 
If  the  words  '  and  all  the  people  '  belong  to  the  original  text,  we 
must  suppose  that  they  are  not  to  be  literally  taken,  and  that 
while  the  multitude  or  a  section  of  it  assailed  the  prophet,  he  sub- 
sequently won  them  over  to  his  side.  This  would  harmonize  with 
the  well-known  fickleness  of  the  crowd,  which  is  peculiarly  sus- 
ceptible to  suggestion,  and  with  the  fact  that  in  24  it  is  said  that 
Ahikam  protected  Jeremiah  so  that  he  was  not  given  *  into  the 


30  JEREMIAH  26.  9-1 1.     B 

Jeremiah  had  made  an  end  of  speaking  all  that  the 
Lord  had  commanded  him  to  speak  unto  all  the  people, 
that  the  priests  and  the  prophets  and  all  the  people 
9  laid  hold  on  him,  saying,  Thou  shalt  surely  die.  Why 
hast  thou  prophesied  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  saying, 
This  house  shall  be  like  Shiloh,  and  this  city  shall  be 
desolate,  without  inhabitant  ?  And  all  the  people  were 
gathered  unto  Jeremiah  in  the  house  of  the  Lord. 

0  And  when  the  princes  of  Judah  heard  these  things, 
they  came  up  from  the  king's  house  unto  the  house  of 
the  Lord  ;  and  they  sat  in  the  entry  of  the  new  gate  of 

1  the  Lord's  house.     Then  spake  the  priests  and  the  pro- 


hand  of  the  people  to  put  him  to  death.'  But  this  was  probably 
at  a  later  period.  It  would  be  better  to  omit  *  and  all  the  people  ' 
here  as  a  mistaken  insertion  from  the  enumeration  in  the  preced- 
ing verse. 

9.  The  gravity  of  Jeremiah's  offence  did  not  lie  simply  in  the 
content  of  his  message,  but  also  in  his  claim  that  so  blasphemous 
an  utterance  was  prompted  by  Divine  inspiration.  The  priests 
and  the  prophets  infer  the  origin  of  the  utterance  from  its  charac- 
ter ;  the  princes  and  people  accept  Jeremiah's  claim  to  have  spoken 
in  Yahweh's  name  seriously,  and  judge  its  character  in  that  light. 

The  statement  at  the  end  of  the  verse  confirms  the  view  that 
*  and  all  the  people '  should  be  deleted  in  8.  Apparently  the 
priests  and  prophets  seized  Jeremiah  at  the  close  of  his  address, 
and  then  the  people  crowded  round  the  prophet  and  his  accusers. 

10.  the  princes  of  Judah.  These  were  apparently  members  of 
the  royal  house,  together  it  may  be  with  other  high  officials.  They 
had  perhaps  been  at  the  king's  council,  but  they  came  up  to  the 
Temple  on  learning  of  the  tumult.  A  messenger  may  have  brought 
the  news,  or  they  may  have  heard  the  noise  themselves,  since  the 
palace  was  close  to  the  Temple,  standing,  as  '  they  came  up '  indi- 
cates, on  a  somewhat  lower  elevation.  When  they  arrived  they 
sat  in  the  gate  to  administer  justice  in  the  case. 

the  new  gate.  The  identification  is  uncertain.  It  is  often 
identified  with  that  mentioned  in  xx.  2,  and  the  designation  '  new 
gate'  is  explained  on  the  assumption  that  it  was  *  the  upper  gate' 
built  by  Jotham  (2  Kings  xv.  35). 

11.  When  the  judges  had  taken  their  seat  the  complainants 
stated  their  case.     The  words  *ye  have  heard  with  your  ears'  is 


JEREMIAH  26.  12,  13.     B  31 

phets  unto  the  princes  and  to  all  the  people,  saying,  This 
man  is  worthy  of  death ;  for  he  hath  prophesied  against 
this  city,  as  ye  have  heard  with  your  ears.  Then  spake  12 
Jeremiah  unto  all  the  princes  and  to  all  the  people,  saying. 
The  Lord  sent  me  to  prophesy  against  this  house  and 
against  this  city  all  the  words  that  ye  have  heard.  There-  13 
fore  now  amend  your  ways  and  your  doings,  and  obey  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  your  God ;  and  the  Lord  will  repent 
him  of  the  evil  that  he  hath  pronounced  against  you. 

applicable  only  to  the  people,  since  the  princes  were  not  present 
at  the  assembly. 

This  man  is  worthy  of  death.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the 
Hebrew  (cf.  Deut.  xix.  6)  means  this  man  has  committed  a  capital 
offence,  or  this  man  deserves  the  death  sentence.  The  material 
difference  is  inconsiderable  :  the  religious  authorities  demand  the 
death  of  the  prophet  on  the  same  charge  of  blasphemy  on  which 
their  successors  judged  Jesus  to  be  worthy  of  death  and  perpetrated 
the  execution  of  Stephen.  But  although  the  question  whether 
Jeremiah's  utterance  constituted  blasphemy  was  one  on  which  an 
ecclesiastical  court  would  pronounce  a  presumably  expert  decision, 
the  final  decision  happily  did  not  rest  with  priests  and  prophets 
but  with  princes  and  people.  In  the  pre-exilic  period  the 
representatives  of  religion  were  not  entrusted  with  the 
mischievous  powers  which  they  later  acquired. 

12-15.  In  a  few  noble  and  simple  words  Jeremiah  makes  his 
defence.  In  a  sentence  he  reaffirms  his  claim  to  have  been 
charged  by  God  with  the  message  he  has  just  delivered.  He 
renews  his  exhortation  to  amendment,  and  promises  that  judge- 
ment will  be  then  averted.  Of  his  own  case  he  speaks  neither 
with  heroics  nor  unmanly  entreaty.  He  recognizes  the  legal 
right  of  the  tribunal  to  execute  him,  and  confronts  the  prospect 
without  theatrical  defiance  on  the  one  hand  or  abject  cowardice 
on  the  other,  but  with  a  serene  expression  of  his  willingness  to 
accept  the  verdict  his  judges  pronounce.  Only  he  would  be  doing 
less  than  his  duty  were  he  so  proudly  to  refuse  all  comment  on 
his  own  case,  that  he  failed  to  point  out  what  a  crime  they  would 
commit  in  slaying  one,  whose  only  fault  had  been  his  faithfulness 
in  executing  the  commission  his  God  and  theirs  had  given  him.  It 
is  a  great  scene  which  here  passes  before  us,  in  which  the  prophet's 
bearing  is  wholly  worthy  of  himself,  and  in  which  we  do  well  to 
observe  his  unshaken  conviction  that  his  message  had  been 
entrusted  to  him  by  God  Himself. 


32  JEREMIAH  26.  14-17.     B 

14  But  as  for  me,  behold,  I  am  in  your  hand  :  do  with  me 

15  as  is  good  and  right  in  your  eyes.  Only  know  ye  for 
certain  that,  if  ye  put  me  to  death,  ye  shall  bring  innocent 
blood  upon  yourselves,  and  upon  this  city,  and  upon  the 
inhabitants  thereof:  for  of  a  truth  the  Lord  hath  sent 

16  me  unto  you  to  speak  all  these  words  in  your  ears.  Then 
said  the  princes  and  all  the  people  unto  the  priests  and 
to  the  prophets  :  This  man  is  not  worthy  of  death  ;  for 
he  hath  spoken  to  us  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  our  God. 

1 7  Then  rose  up  certain  of  the  elders  of  the  land,  and  spake 


16.  The  princes  and  people  have  a  wider  outlook  and  more 
freedom  from  narrow  prejudice  than  the  official  custodians  of 
religion.  They  are  impressed  with  the  calm  bearing  and  simple 
dignity  of  the  prophet,  and  with  his  firm  confidence  in  his  Divine 
commission.  They  acquit  him  on  the  ground  that  he  has  spoken 
to  them  in  the  name  of  Yahweh.  Not  indeed  that  the  mere  claim 
to  have  done  so  would  have  been  held  sufficient.  But  they  are 
swayed  by  the  impression  made  on  them  by  the  man  himself,  and 
by  the  reflection  that  a  prophet  who  proclaims  an  unpopular 
message  at  the  risk  of  his  life  gives  thereby  ample  security  for  his 
sincerity.  Reading  the  message  through  the  man  rather  than  the 
man  through  the  distastefulness  of  the  message,  they  recognize 
that  God  is  really  its  author,  and  that  His  spokesman  must  be 
permitted  to  say  what  apart  from  such  a  source  would  have  been 
regarded  as  blasphemous. 

1*7.  The  decision  to  acquit  the  prophet  is  now  corroborated  by 
an  appeal  to  precedent.  The  '  elders  of  the  land '  may  perhaps 
be  an  official  title,  standing  for  the  heads  of  families  throughout 
Judah.  They  had  a  legal  status,  and  constituted  an  important 
element  in  the  community  and  its  organization.  But  the  phrase 
may  indicate  age  rather  than  status.  If  so,  the  meaning  is  that 
some  of  the  old  people,  especially  from  the  country  districts  (*  the 
land  '),  related  the  story  of  Micah's  drastic  prediction  as  it  had 
come  down  to  them  in  their  traditions.  Micah  was  himself 
a  countryman  and  a  man  of  the  people,  unlike  the  aristocratic 
Isaiah  of  Jerusalem,  and  his  words  were  more  likely  to  be  cherished 
among  the  countryfolk,  whose  attitude  towards  a  prediction  of  the 
capital's  downfall  would  be  less  bitter  than  the  reception  accorded 
it  in  the  capital  itself.  There  is  no  good  reason  for  doubting  the 
accuracy  of  the  story  told  by  '  the  elders.' 


JEREMIAH  26.  i8.     B  33 

to  all  the  assembly  of  the  people,  saying,  ^  Micaiah  the 
*  Another  reading  is,  Mt'ca/t.     See  Micah  i.  i.  " 

18.  Micaiah.  The  form  Micah  read  by  the  Q^re  is  that  familiar 
to  us  in  the  Book  of  Micah  itself,  but  it  is  an  abbreviated  form. 
Even  Micaiah  is  abbreviated  from  the  older  Micayahu.  Micah 
was  a  contemporarj'  of  Isaiah,  and  a  native  of  Moresheth-gath, 
which  is  said  to  have  been  near  Eleutheropolis,  and  should 
probably  be  distinguished  from  Mareshah.  His  prophecy  was 
uttered  about  a  hundred  years  earlier.  It  is  reported  here  and 
in  Mic.  iii.  12  with  almost  complete  verbal  agreement.  It  was 
as  uncompromising  as  the  denunciation  for  which  Jeremiah  had 
just  been  charged  with  a  capital  crime.  It  is  only  fair  to  recognize, 
however,  that  the  situation  had  altered.  In  the  interval  Isaiah's 
doctrine  of  the  inviolabilit}'  of  Zion  had  been  vindicated  by 
Sennacherib's  overthrow  and  had  hardened  into  a  dogma  ;  while 
the  centralization  of  the  worship  had  left  the  Temple  as  the  sole 
seat  of  the  cultus  of  Yahweh.  The  offence  caused  by  Jeremiah 
was  therefore  greater  than  that  caused  by  Micah.  For  in  the  reign 
of  Hezekiah  Jerusalem  had  no  ecclesiastical  monopoly,  and  it 
might  have  been  destroyed  without  the  cult  of  Yahweh  coming  to 
an  end.  But  now  the  Temple  was  the  only  legitimate  seat  of  the 
cultus,  so  that  its  destruction  seemed  to  carry  with  it  far  more 
serious  consequences  than  formerly. 

The  reference  to  Micah  is  one  of  great  interest,  in  view  of  the 
almost  complete  absence  of  similar  allusions  in  the  prophetic 
literature.  Jeremiah  does  not  himself  name  any  of  the  eighth- 
century  prophets,  deeply  though  he  had  been  influenced  by  them, 
and  especially  by  Hosea.  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah  do  not  mention 
each  other,  though  Ezekiel  was  much  influenced  by  his  senior 
contemporary  and  shared  his  pessimistic  estimate  of  Judah's 
character  and  imminent  ruin,  while  Jeremiah  was  actually  in 
correspondence  with  the  exiles  among  whom  Ezekiel  a  few  years 
later  began  to  labour.  Here  the  reference  is  made  by  the  people, 
and  its  preservation  is  due  to  Baruch. 

The  quotation  here  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  problem 
raised  by  the  prophecy  in  Mic.  iv.  1-3,  which  is  found  also  in  Isa. 
ii.  2-4.  The  passage  in  Micah  follows  immediately  on  Mic.  iii.  12 
which  is  here  quoted.  If  this  was  its  original  situation,  it  follows 
that  the  passage  was  uttered  bj'  Micah  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah, 
assuming  the  chronological  trustworthiness  of  the  statement  in 
this  verse.  Various  explanations  are  given  of  the  inclusion  in 
both  Isaiah  and  Micah  of  this  prophecy.  Some  think  it  was 
independently  derived  from  an  older  prophet,  some  that  it  was 
original  with  one  of  these  and  borrowed  by  the  other  or  inserted 
by  an  editor,  others  regard  it  as  a  post-exilic  oracle  inserted  in 
II  D 


34  JEREMIAH  26.  19.     B 

Morashtite  prophesied  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah  king 
of  Judah ;  and  he  spake  to  all  the  people  of  Judah,  say- 
ing, Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts  :  ^  Zion  shall  be  plowed 
as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  shall  become  heaps,  and  the 
mountain  of  the  house  as  the  high  places  of  a  forest. 
[9  Did  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah  and  all  Judah  put  him  at  all 
to  death?   did  he  not  fear  the  Lord,  and  intreat  the 

*  See  Micah  iii.  12. 

both  books.  The  commentaries  on  Isaiah  and  Micah  must  be 
consulted  for  a  discussion  of  this  question  (the  present  writer 
inclines  to  the  view  that  the  oracle  is  post-exilic)  ;  here  it  is 
necessary  simply  to  draw  attention  to  the  bearing  on  it  of  the 
present  passage.  If  we  could  assume  that  Mic.  iv.  1-3  was 
originally  attached  to  Mic.  iii.  12,  we  should  then  be  able  to  affirm 
that  the  passage  was  certainly  no  later  than  Hezekiah's  reign.  It 
is,  however,  most  unlikely  that  this  was  the  case.  Our  present 
narrative  shows  clearly  that  Micah's  prediction  was  one  of 
unrelieved  disaster,  which  was  not  fulfilled  simply  on  account  of 
the  king's  repentance  and  prayers. 

the  mountain  of  the  house :  i.  e.  the  summit  on  which  the 
Temple  was  built. 

the  high  places  of  a  forest.  The  LXX  reads  the  singular, 
which  should  probably  be  adopted,  especially  since  the  singular  as 
written  at  this  time  would  be  indistinguishable  from  the  plural. 
The  term  *  high  place  of  a  forest '  may  simply  mean  ^  a  wooded 
height,'  i.e.  the  Temple  will  be  destroyed  and  its  site  covered 
with  trees.  But  possibly  it  may  be  used  in  the  technical  sense 
of  'sanctuary,'  and  in  that  case  the  meaning  will  be  that  in  place 
of  the  splendid  building  which  is  now  the  exclusive  sanctuary  of 
Yahweh,  thronged  from  all  parts  of  Judah,  there  will  be  simply 
a  forest  sanctuary,  some  rude  structure  to  which  only  the  few 
dwellers  in  the  sparsely  populated  district  would  resort.  Roth- 
stein  thinks  that  the  LXX  rendering  '  grove '  presupposes  a 
different  Hebrew  text,  and  reads  '  the  thicket  {lisbakh)  of  a  forest' 
or  '  the  thickets  of  a  forest,'  as  in  Isa.  ix.  17. 

19.  This  result  of  Micah's  preaching  is  otherwise  unknown  to 
us,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  its  historicity.  It  accords  with 
the  principle  expressed  in  xviii.  7,  8  (see  the  note)  that  timely 
repentance  may  avert  a  threatened  judgement.  Notice  the  con- 
junction of  Judah  with  the  king  in  the  infliction  or  withholding  of 
the  death  penalty.  We  should  probably  continue  with  plurals  (so 
LXX,  Syr.,  Vulg.),  '  did  not  they  fear,'  &c. 

intreat  the  favour.    The  Hebrew  means  literally  *  smooth  the 


JEREMIAH  2G.  2c.     B  35 

favour  of  the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  repented  him  of  the  evil 
which  he  had  pronounced  against  them  ?     Thus  should 
we  commit  great  evil  against  our  own  souls.     And  there  20 
was  also  a  man  that  prophesied  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 


face,'  i.e.  mollify.  This  very  anthropomorphic  expression  was 
probably  a  technical  term  in  the  sacrificial  vocabularj',  meaning  to 
soothe  the  deity  by  an  offering,  and  thus  remove  the  frown  which 
wrinkled  his  face.  Presumably  it  was  far  more  ancient  than  the 
Hebrew  p>eople,  but  it  is  remarkable  that  in  the  prophetic  litera- 
ture it  appears  very  late,  being  found  elsewhere  only  in  Zech.  vii. 
2,  viii.  21,  22,  Mai.  i.  9. 

Thus  should  we  commit:  i.e.  if  we  put  Jeremiah  to  death. 
The  Hebrew  is  more  vivid,  '  But  we  are  committing.'  It  was  an 
evil  to  shed  innocent  blood,  a  graver  evil  when  it  was  the  blood  of 
Yahweh's  messenger.  But  their  guilt  would  be  aggravated,  since 
they  had  the  precedent  of  Micah  before  them.  The  penitence  of 
king  and  people  had  received  the  stamp  of  the  Divine  approval, 
manifested  in  the  remission  of  penalty.  If  Jeremiah  is  murdered 
they  will  only  be  sealing  their  own  death-warrant.  The  narrative 
is  not  formally  concluded,  but  we  are  intended  to  understand  that 
Jeremiah  leaves  the  scene  unhurt,  though  if  glances  could  kill  he 
would  doubtless  have  fallen  a  victim  to  the  envenomed  hatred  of 
his  bafiBed  adversaries. 

souls :  better  lives. 
20-23.  See  vol.  i,  p.  17.  This  episode  is  related  to  show  how 
grave  was  the  risk  which  Jeremiah  ran.  The  source  of  the 
narrative  is  uncertain,  but  in  all  probability  we  owe  it  to  Baruch. 
Cornill  suggested  in  his  edition  of  the  Hebrew  text  that  the 
passage  should  be  placed  after  24.  It  is  true  that  it  joins  on 
awkwardly  to  19 ;  the  reader  would  at  first  suppose  that  the  elders 
of  the  land  were  still  speaking,  but  soon  sees  that  this  is  out  of 
the  question.  But  24  also  would  connect  badly  with  16-19. 
Jeremiah  is  saved  from  imminent  death  by  the  verdict  of  the 
princes  and  people,  endorsed  by  '  the  elders  of  the  land '  with 
their  appeal  to  ancient  precedent.  The  reference  to  Ahikam  as 
his  supporter,  who  stood  between  him  and  death,  cannot  accord- 
ingly refer  to  this  scene.  It  follows  20-23  quite  well ;  the  point 
of  its  insertion  is  that,  while  Uriah  fell  a  victim  to  the  pertinacious 
enmity  of  the  king,  Jeremiah  escaped.  We  know  nothing  further 
of  Uriah  than  we  learn  from  this  passage.  Apparently  he  went 
beyond  Jeremiah  and  attacked  Jehoiakim,  presumably  somewhat 
later,  since  Jeremiah's  utterance  at  this  time  which  Uriah  repeated 
was  more  drastic  than  anything  he  had  said  before. 
D  2 


36  JEREMIAH  26.  21,  22.     B 

Uriah  the  son  of  Shemaiah  of  Kiriath-jearim ;  and  he 
prophesied  against  this  city  and  against  this  land  accord- 

21  ing  to  all  the  words  of  Jeremiah  :  and  when  Jehoiakim 
the  king,  with  all  his  mighty  men,  and  all  the  princes, 
heard  his  words,  the  king  sought  to  put  him  to  death ; 
but  when  Uriah  heard  it,  he  was  afraid,  and  fled,  and 

2  2  went  into  Egypt :  and  Jehoiakim  the  king  sent  men  into 

Kiriath-jearim.  The  site  of  this  city  is  not  certain  ;  Robinson's 
identification  with  Qaryet  el-*Enab  (or,  as  it  is  now  more  commonly 
called,  Abu  Ghosh),  which  is  a  few  miles  north-west  of  Jerusalem 
on  the  road  to  Jaffa,  is  that  most  commonly  adopted.  Some 
prefer  Khirbet  'Erma,  near  Bet  'Atab.  The  place  is  chiefly 
famous  as  for  twenty  years  the  home  of  the  ark  (i  Sam.  vii.  2). 

21.  with  all  his  migfhty  men:  omitted  in  the  LXX,  perhaps 
correctly,  as  the  expression  is  not  employed  elsewhere  in  the  book. 

he  was  afraid  .  . .  Eg-ypt :  cf.  Exod.  ii.  14,  15,  i  Kings  xi. 
40.  But  while  Moses  was  safe  from  Pharaoh  in  Midian,  and 
Jeroboam  from  Solomon  in  Egypt,  Uriah  could  not  escape  from 
Jehoiakim,  the  vassal  of  Egypt.  The  king  sent  to  his  suzerain  to 
request  the  extradition  of  the  prophet. 

22.  Elnathan  .  .  1  Egypt.  The  LXX  omits  these  words,  and 
in  the  judgement  of  several  scholars,  including  Orelli,  correctly. 
In  xxxvi.  12  he  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  princes,  who  heard 
Baruch  read  the  roll  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies.  He  was  also 
(xxxvi,  25)  one  of  the  three  who  entreated  the  king  not  to  bum  the 
roll.  It  is  urged  that  a  man  who  took  this  stand  would  not  be 
likely  to  have  played  the  part  here  assigned  to  him.  Moreover 
the  present  text,  with  its  repetition  of  '  into  Egypt,'  is  undeniably 
awkward.  It  is  not  easy,  however,  just  in  view  of  the  former 
difficulty,  to  understand  how  any  scribe  should  have  selected 
Elnathan  for  such  a  mission.  Probably  the  disputed  words  are 
authentic,  in  which  case  we  might  with  advantage  omit  '  men  into 
Egypt,'  which  has  apparently  arisen  by  incorrect  repetition  of  the 
same  words  from  the  latter  part  of  the  verse.  The  LXX  was 
presumably  made  from  the  present  Hebrew  text  after  this  expan- 
sion by  dittography  had  taken  place  ;  the  omission  of  22**  was  then 
either  accidental,  the  scribe  writing  as  far  as  *  Egypt '  in  22*, 
and  his  eye  passing  to  the  same  word  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  or 
deliberate  and  occasioned  partly  by  the  awkwardness  of  the  text, 
partly  by  the  same  consideration,  which  has  weighed  with  modern 
scholars,  that  Elnathan,  who  had  pleaded  for  the  preservation  of 
the  roll,  was  hardly  the  man  to  have  fetched  Uriah  from  Egypt. 
But  we  must  not  overrate  the  significance  of  either  action.    In  the 


JEREMIAH  20.  23,  24.     B  37 

Egypt,  namely^  Elnathan  the  son  of  Achbor,  and  certain 
men  with  him,  into  Egypt:  and  they  fetched  forth  Uriah  23 
out  of  Egypt,  and  brought  him  unto  Jehoiakim  the  king ; 
who  slew  him  with  the  sword,  and  cast  his  dead  body  into 
the  graves  of  the  ^  common  people.     But  the  hand  of  24 
■^  Heb.  sons  of  the  people. 

latter  he  was  simply  the  king's  agent,  who  must  do  his  master's 
bidding ;  and  if  Uriah  had  attacked  the  king,  Elnathan  may  well 
have  justified  his  action  to  himself  as  bringing  to  his  merited  fate 
a  man  guilty  of  high  treason.  Nor  does  the  entreaty  that  the  roll 
should  not  be  burnt  imply  any  definite  adhesion  to  the  prophetic 
party.  Superstition  might  have  prompted  it  just  as  well  as 
enlightened  religion.  Even  pirates  dread  the  bad  luck  which  the 
mutilation  of  a  Bible  might  bring  with  it.  If  he  is  to  be  identified 
with  the  Elnathan  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  8,  he  was  the  father 
of  Nehushta,  one  of  Jehoiakim's  wives  and  the  mother  of  Jehoia- 
chin.  As  the  king's  father-in-law  he  would  be  well  suited  for  a 
diplomatic  mission  to  Egypt. 

Achbor.  According  to  2  Kings  xxii.  12,  14  he  formed  part  of 
the  deputation  sent  by  Josiah  to  Huldah  to  learn  Yahweh's  will 
with  reference  to  the  Book  of  the  Law.  The  name  means 
'  mouse ' ;  it  is  noteworthy  that  animal  names  seem  to  have 
become  prominent  about  this  period,  Shaphan  (24)  meaning  '  rock- 
badger.'     See  Gray,  Hebrew  Proper  Names,  pp.  98,  103,  113-5. 

23.  Extradition  was  apparently  a  well-recognized  feature  of 
international  politics.  Jehoiakim's  application  would  be  all  the 
more  favoured  that  he  had  been  appointed  by  Egypt,  and  any  attack 
on  him  would  be  regarded  as  inimical  to  her  interests  in  Judah. 

the  graves  of  the  common  people.  This  is  unquestionably 
the  correct  text  ;  the  LXX  reads  'of  his  people.'  But  it  is  intrin- 
sically improbable  that  the  prophet  should  be  buried  in  his  family 
grave,  and  the  LXX  testifies  against  its  own  reading  by  retaining 
*  cast.'  The  king's  vengeance  pursued  his  victim  after  he  was 
dead.  He  did  not  indeed  give  him  'the  burial  of  an  ass'  which 
was  later  predicted  for  himself  Txxii.  19),  but  he  deprived  him  of 
the  burial  with  his  fathers  which  was  so  much  prized  by  every 
Hebrew  (see  Enc.  Bib.  5138,  and  note  on  xxii.  18,  19  .  Those 
who  were  too  poor  to  possess  a  family  grave  had  to  be  buried  in 
the  common  burial-ground,  since  it  would,  at  any  rate  in  earlier 
times,  have  seemed  a  desecration  to  admit  strangers  into  the 
family  tomb.  Where  the  public  burial-ground  was  situated  we  do 
not  know,  but  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  6  we  may  infer  that  it  was  near 
'the  brook  Kidron.' 

24.  While  this  was  the  fate  of  Uriah,  Jeremiah  was  preserved, 


38  JEREMIAH  26.  24—27.  i.     BBS 

Ahikam  the  son  of  Shaphan  was  with  Jeremiahj  that  they 
should  not  give  him  into  the  hand  of  the  people  to  put 
him  to  death. 

7      [BS]  In  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  ^  Jehoiakim  the 

*  Properly,  Zedekiah,  as  in  some  ancient  authorities.     See  vv.  3, 
12,  20,  ch.  xxviii.  i. 

perhaps  at  the  same  time,  by  the  powerful  influence  of  Ahikam. 
Like  Achbor,  Ahikam  had  been  a  member  of  the  deputation  to 
Huldah  after  the  discovery  of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  if  we  can 
assume  his  identity  with  the  Ahikam  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xxii. 
14.  He  was  the  father  of  Gedaliah,  who  worthily  continued  the 
family  tradition.  It  is  questionable  whether  Shaphan  is  to  be 
identified  with  Shaphan  the  scribe,  who  was  another  member  of 
the  deputation,  since  we  should  naturally  expect  the  name  of  the 
father  to  precede  that  of  the  son  in  the  list  of  those  who  formed  it 
(2  Kings  xxii.  14).  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  people  had  pro- 
tected Jeremiah  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  is  surprising.  But  the 
mob  is  proverbially  fickle,  and  the  prophet's  enemies  would  no 
doubt  seek  to  retrieve  their  defeat  by  playing  on  its  prejudices. 

xxvii-xxix.  Jeremiah  Contradicts  the  Predictions  of  a 
Speedy  Return  from  Exile. 
These  chapters  are  closely  connected  not  only  by  community  of 
subject-matter  in  that  all  three  are  directed  against  the  optimists 
who  hoped  to  reverse  the  disaster  of  597  b.  c,  but  in  that  they 
unite  in  exhibiting  certain  peculiarities  which  suggest  that  at  one 
time  they  circulated  independently.  They  show  a  preference  for 
the  shortened  termination  in  -yah,  instead  of  -yahu,  of  names 
compounded  with  the  Divine  Name.  The  longer  forms  also 
occur,  and  in  some  cases  both  types  appear  side  by  side  in  the 
same  verse.  Nevertheless  the  proportion  of  the  shorter  to  the 
longer  form  is  characteristic,  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  the 
prophet's  own  name  appears  several  times  in  these  chapters  in 
the  shortened  form,  but  nowhere  else  in  the  book.  It  is  also 
striking  that  whereas  in  the  rest  of  the  book  the  designation  *  the 
prophet'  is  appended  to  Jeremiah  in  little  more  than  a  sixth  of 
its  total  occurrences,  here  it  is  used  fairly  frequently,  i.e.  in  xxviii, 
xxix.  It  ought  to  be  said,  however,  that  this  is  not  so  significant 
as  it  seems,  since  Jeremiah  is  here  definitely  represented  as  in 
conflict  with  the  prophets,  so  that  the  addition  of  the  designation 
has  a  special  appropriateness,  particularly  in  xxviii,  where  he  and 
the  prophet  Hananiah,  who  also  is  constantly  so  described,  confront 


JEREMIAH  27.  i.     BS  39 

son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  came  this  word  unto  Jeremiah 

each  other.  Even  so  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  it  is  a  pecuh- 
arity  of  this  section.  Further,  whereas  elsewhere  in  Jeremiah 
except  xxxiv.  i,  xxxix.  5,  which  is  derived  from  2  Kings,  the 
more  accurate  form  Nebuchadrezzar  is  always  found,  in  this 
section  the  later  form  Nebuchadnezzar  is  employed  eight  times, 
the  more  correct  form  only  once  (xxix.  21).  Lastly,  the  LXX 
diverges  from  the  Hebrew  in  these  chapters  to  a  quite  exceptional 
degree.  Graf,  in  his  careful  discussion,  has  reduced  the  significance 
of  these  phenomena  by  reference  to  parallels,  but  the  combination 
of  peculiarities  is  too  great  to  be  explained  by  the  carelessness  of 
copyists.  We  should  have  to  explain  why  this  cause  did  not 
operate  on  a  similar  scale  elsewhere.  Giesebrecht  suggests  that 
these  chapters  may  have  been  copied  out  for  circulation  among 
the  exiles  in  Babylon,  and  having  thus  an  independent  existence 
were  affected  by  causes  which  did  not  affect  the  rest  of  the  book. 
Duhm,  while  admitting  not  a  little  of  the  chapters  to  be  derived 
from  the  memoirs  of  Baruch,  yet  considers  that  they  were  inserted 
in  the  book  much  later  than  the  greater  part  of  xxxii-xlv. 

The  position  of  these  chapters  after  xxvi  may  be  due  to  the 
fact  that  here  also  Jeremiah's  gloomy  predictions  of  ruin  are 
vehemently  opposed  by  the  prophets. 

xxvii,  xxviii.     Jeremiah  Contradicts  the  Optimism  of  the 
Prophets  in  Judah. 

These  chapters  are  linked  together  by  the  account  they  give  of 
Jeremiah's  attack  on  the  optimistic  forecast  of  the  prophets  in 
Judah  that  the  Babylonian  dominion  would  soon  be  ended  and  the 
Temple  vessels  be  restored.  In  xxvii  the  prophets  are  referred  to 
collectively,  while  in  xxviii  we  read  of  Jeremiah's  encounter  with 
an  individual  representative  of  the  order.  Yet  there  are  note- 
worthy points  of  difference  :  xxvii  is  written  in  a  much  more  diffuse 
style  than  xxviii,  though  the  former  exists  in  the  LXX  in  a  much 
more  abbreviated  form  ;  xxvii  is  written  in  the  first  person,  xxviii 
almost  entirely  in  the  third  ;  xxvii  is  introduced  by  a  very  general 
indication  of  time  which  contains  the  palpable  blunder  of 
Jehoiakim  for  Zedekiah,  whereas  an  exact  date  stands  at  the  head 
of  xxviii.  Moreover  xxviii.  i  by  the  words  '  it  came  to  pass  the 
same  year'  implies  that  a  year  has  been  mentioned  in  xxvii,  but 
that  is  not  true  of  the  present  text.  It  is  probable  that  the  two 
chapters  in  their  original  form  constituted  a  single  connected 
narrative  from  the  pen  of  Baruch,  in  which  Jeremiah  was  referred 
to  in  the  third  person.  The  statement  in  xxviii.  i  that  the 
incidents  recorded  in  xxviii  belonged  to  the  same  year  as  those 
recorded  in  xxvii  is  not  only  obviously  correct  but  compels  us  to 
insert  the  year  at  the  beginning  of  xxvii.     Since  xxvii.  i  is  absent 


40  JEREMIAH  27.  2.     BS 

2  from  the  Lord,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  to  me : 

in  the  LXX  and  does  not  correspond  to  what  xxviii.  i  entitles  us 
to  expect,  we  should  eliminate  it  as  a  mere  repetition  of  xxvi.  i  ; 
and  substitute  for  it,  with  Cornill  who  is  followed  by  Duhm,  the 
greater  part  of  xxviii.  i*,  reading  'And  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
fourth  yearof  Zedekiah,  kingof  Judah,  in  the  fifth  month,  that  this 
word  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  Yahweh,  saying.'  Chap,  xxvii  has 
also  experienced  a  good  deal  of  expansion,  which  we  can  trace 
partially  by  the  aid  of  the  LXX.  It  may  be  added  that  Rothstein 
reconstructs  the  original  order  substantially  as  follows  :  xxviii. 
1-9,  xxvii.  2-4,  12'',  8-11,  xxviii.  10-17,  xxvii.  16-22,  though  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  portions  have  to  be  taken  as 
Baruch's  work  only  when  the  additions  of  later  redactors  have 
been  removed.  This  rearrangement  is  certainly  ingenious,  but  it 
involves  excessive  transposition,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether,  apart 
from  this,  it  presents  a  more  probable  view  as  to  the  order  of  the 
incidents. 

In  spite  of  Schmidt's  verdict  that  the  story  of  the  bands  and 
yokes  is  'scarcely  historical'  {Enc.  Bib.  2387),  there  seems  to  be 
no  solid  ground  for  doubting  the  general  accuracy  of  the  narrative. 
That  in  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah  (594-593  b.  c.)  a  movement  to 
throw  off  the  Babylonian  yoke  was  on  foot  among  the  states  of 
Palestine  enumerated  in  xxvii.  3  is  exposed  to  no  suspicion  in 
itself,  and  it  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  (if  we  can  regard  it  as  such) 
that  Zedekiah  went  to  Babylon  in  the  same  year  (li.  59).  He  may 
have  gone  voluntarily  to  clear  himself  of  the  suspicion  that  he  had 
meditated  rebellion,  or  he  may  have  been  summoned  there  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.  The  coincidence  can  hardly  be  accidental. 
Further,  Cornill  raises  the  question  whether  the  fact  that  Pharaoh 
Necoh  died  in  594  may  have  occasioned  the  movement  in  Palestine, 
since  it  may  have  been  thought  that  his  successor  Psammetichus 
II  would  adopt  a  different  policy  from  his  father,  who  was  bound 
by  his  agreement  with  Nebuchadnezzar.  In  any  case 
Psammetichus  was  prevented  by  his  war  with  Ethiopia  from 
attacking  Babylon,  and  by  this  cardinal  fact  of  the  situation 
Cornill  explains  the  failure  of  the  coalition  to  effect  anything. 
Nothing  could  be  attempted  without  the  promise  of  support  from 
Egypt,  and,  as  that  was  not  forthcoming,  the  Palestinian  movement 
against  Babylon  came  to  nothing.  We  have  no  substantial 
grounds  for  assuming  that  Zedekiah  was  in  any  way  committed  to 
the  coalition,  though  he  was  obviously  in  danger  of  yielding  to  the 
pressure  from  within  and  without.  How  far  Jeremiah's  influence 
co-operated  with  the  conditions  of  the  period  to  bring  about  the 
failure  of  the  plot  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  say,  nor  whether  the 
fulfilment  of  his  prediction  of  Hananiah's  death  did  much  to 
persuade  the  leaders  in  Judah  that  he  saw  more  clearly  than  they 


'JEREMIAH  27.  2.     BS  41 

Make  thee  bands  and  "  bars,  and  put  them  upon  thy 
'^  See  Lev.  xxvi.  13. 

did  what  the  issue  of  rebellion  would  be.  It  is  a  gratifying  sign 
of  a  return  to  a  less  prejudiced  attitude  towards  the  predictive 
element  in  prophecy  that  scholars  so  free  from  traditional  bias  as 
Giesebrecht,  Duhm,  and  Cornill,  should  affirm  their  full  belief  in 
the  statement  of  xxviii.  17  that  Jeremiah's  prediction  of  Hanan- 
iah's  death  within  the  year  was  fulfilled. 

xxvii.  i-ii.  Yahweh  bade  me  make  bands  and  bars,  and  send 
word  to  the  five  kings  by  the  messengers  they  had  sent  to  Zede- 
kiah,  that  Yahweh  the  Mighty  Creator  had  given  all  these  lands 
into  Nebuchadnezzar's  hand,  and  all  nations  should  serve  him  and 
his  successors,  till  the  time  of  retribution  on  his  dynasty  should 
come.  The  nation  that  refused  to  submit  to  him  should  be  con- 
sumed. Let  them  not  listen  to  the  lying  predictions  of  freedom, 
which  can  end  only  in  exile  and  death.  The  nation  that  will 
serve  the  king  of  Babylon  shall  be  left  undisturbed  in  its  own  land. 

12-15.  ^  warned  Zedekiah  also  to  submit,  so  as  to  live  and  not 
die,  and  refuse  to  listen  to  the  prophets  who  say  in  Yahweh's 
name  that  they  should  serve  the  king  of  Babylon.  They  prophesy 
falsely,  and  ruin  will  be  the  portion  of  those  who  obey  their 
behests. 

16-22.  I  warned  the  priests  and  people  not  to  believe  the  prophets 
who  foretold  that  the  Temple  vessels  would  soon  be  restored,  but 
to  serve  the  king  of  Babylon  and  save  themselves  and  the  city. 
I  challenged  them  if  they  were  really  Yahweh's  prophets  to  pray 
that  the  vessels  which  were  still  left  should  not  be  taken  to  Babylon. 
For  Yahweh  has  said  that  those  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  not 
taken  when  Jeconiah  was  carried  into  captivity  should  be  taken  to 
Babylon  and  remain  there  till  He  restored  them. 

xxviii.  i-ii.  Hananiah  the  prophet  announced  to  Jeremiah  at 
the  Temple,  before  the  priests  and  all  the  people,  that  Yahweh  had 
declared  that  He  had  broken  the  yoke  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and 
that  within  two  years  He  would  bring  the  Temple  vessels,  with 
Jeconiah  and  all  the  exiles.  Jeremiah  replied  that  he  wished  it 
might  be  so,  but  that  the  older  prophets  had  prophesied  of  disaster, 
and  the  prophet  of  peace  could  be  recognized  as  truly  Yahweh's 
messenger  only  when  his  word  had  been  accomplished.  Then 
Hananiah  broke  the  bar  from  Jeremiah's  neck,  and  said  that  thus 
Yahweh  would  within  two  years  break  the  yoke  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
from  the  neck  of  all  the  nations.     Then  Jeremiah  went  his  way. 

12-17.  Then  Yahweh  bade  Jeremiah  tell  Hananiah  that  bars  of 
iron  should  replace  the  wooden  bars  he  had  broken.  For  He  had 
put  an  iron  yoke  on  the  neck  of  the  nations,  and  they  should  serve 
Nebuchadnezzar.      Then  Jeremiah   told  Hananiah  that  Yahweh 


42  JEREMIAH  27.  3, 4-     BS 

3  neck ;  and  send  them  to  the  king  of  Edom,  and  to  the 
king  of  Moab,  and  to  the  king  of  the  children  of  Amnion, 
and  to  the  king  of  Tyre,  and  to  the  king  of  Zidon,  by  the 
hand  of  the  messengers  which  come  to  Jerusalem  unto 

4  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah ;  and  give  them  a  charge  unto 

had  not  sent  him,  but  he  had  made  the  people  to  trust  in  a  lie,  and 
should  in  consequence  die  that  year.  So  Hananiah  died  in  the 
seventh  month. 

xxvii.  1.  It  has  long  been  recognized  that  the  reference  to 
Jehoiakim  is  mistaken,  and  that  the  events  recorded  really 
happened  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  as  is  clear  from  the  statements 
of  this  chapter  (3,  12,20)  and  the  chronological  note  at  the  begin- 
ning of  xxviii.  But  the  mere  substitution  of  Zedekiah  for  Jehoiakim 
does  not  yield  a  satisfactory  text.  The  beginning  of  Zedekiah's 
reign,  when  he  had  just  sworn  fealty  to  Babylon,  was  certainly 
no  occasion  for  projects  of  revolt ;  moreover  xxviii.  i  requires  a 
definite  date,  viz.  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah,  to  have  been  men- 
tioned here.  Hence  we  cannot  follow  the  LXX  and  simply  strike 
out  the  verse.  For  a  probable  restoration  of  the  original  text  see 
the  Introduction  to  xxvii,  xxviii  (p.  40). 

2.  to  me  z  is  omitted  by  the  LXX.  We  should  either  omit 
it,  or  read  *to  Jeremiah,'  the  last  letter  being  an  abbreviation  for 
'Jeremiah.' 

bands  and  bars  :  i.e.  a  yoke,  the  wooden  bars  being  fastened 
together  by  thongs.  Such  symbolic  actions  were  not  uncommon 
among  the  prophets;  a  close  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  i  Kings 
xxii.  II,  where  Zedekiah  the  courtier-prophet,  who  opposed 
Micaiah,  as  Hananiah  opposed  Jeremiah, '  made  him  horns  of  iron, 
and  said,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  With  these  shalt  thou  push  the 
Syrians,  until  they  be  consumed.' 

3.  and  send  them.  Only  one  yoke  is  mentioned  in  2,  and  this 
is  put  on  the  prophet's  own  neck.  This  verse  suggests  to  the 
reader  that  five  yokes  were  made  and  sent  to  the  five  kings.  But 
since  'them'  in  3  is  identical  with  'them'  in  2,  the  reference 
must  be  to  the  bands  and  bars  of  the  yoke  worn  by  Jeremiah,  and 
these  were  obviously  not  sent,  since  Jeremiah  was  wearing  the 
yoke  at  a  later  time  (xxviii.  10).  The  text  is  accordingly  corrupt, 
and  we  should  omit  *  them,*  with  Lucian's  edition  of  the  LXX, 
reading  simply  '  and  send  to  the  king,'  i.e.  send  a  message.  The 
message  was  enforced  by  the  symbolism  of  the  yoke  which  typi- 
fied subjection  to  Babylon,  but  no  yoke  was  sent.  The  countries 
here  named  occur  in  the  same  order  in  xxv.  21,  22.  The  messengers 
had  no  doubt  been  sent  to  Jerusalem  to  plot  rebellion  against 
Babylon. 


JEREMIAH  27.  5-7.     BS  S  43 

their  masters,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the 
God  of  Israel :  Thus  shall  ye  say  unto  your  masters  ;   I  5 
have  made  the  earth,  the  man  and  the  beast  that  are  upon 
the  face  of  the  earth,  by  my  great  power  and  by  my  out- 
stretched arm ;  and  I  give  it  unto  whom  it  seemeth  right 
unto  me.    And  now  have  I  given  all  these  lands  into  the  6 
hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  of  Babylon,  my  servant ; 
and  the  beasts  of  the  field  also  have  I  given  him  to  serve 
him.    [S]  And  all  the  nations  shall  serve  him,  and  his  son,  7 
and  his  son's  son,  until  the  time  of  his  own  land  come : 
and  then  many  nations  and  great  kings  shall  serve  them- 

5.  Yahvveh  the  God  of  Israel  is  proclaimed  to  these  heathen 
monarchs  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  whose  right  to  dispose 
of  it  as  He  will  rests  upon  the  fact  that  He  has  made  it.  The 
LXX  omits  *  the  man  .  .  .  the  earth,'  probably  because  by  an  over- 
sight the  translator  passed  from  the  first  to  the  second  mention  of 
the  earth. 

my  outstretched  arm.  The  expression  is  more  generally 
(and  more  appropriately)  used  with  reference  to  God's  great  acts 
of  deliverance  (e.g.  Exod.vi.6,  Deut.iv.  34)orchastisement(xxi.  5, 
and  the  refrain  in  Isa.  ix.  8 — x.  4,  v.  25-30).  It  is  used  as  here  with 
reference  to  creation  in  the  probably  post-exilic  passage  xxxii.  17. 

6.  my  servant.     See  xxv.  9. 

the  beasts  of  the  field.  This  is  at  first  sight  a  rather  strange 
addition.  The  dominion  of  man  is  defined  in  Gen.  i.  26-28,  on 
which  Ps.  viii.  6-8  rests.  It  is  a  rule  over  all  the  lower  creation 
in  earth,  air,  and  sea.  It  belongs  to  mankind  as  such,  and  so  pre- 
eminently to  the  lord  of  mankind,  or  at  least  of  '  all  these  lands.' 
It  would  be  rather  precarious  to  affirm  that  this  clause  is  of  Jere- 
mianic  origin  :  cf.  xxviii.  14,  Dan.  ii.  38. 

7.  This  verse  is  omitted  in  the  LXX  ;  it  has  been  regarded  as 
a  later  addition  by  Movers,  Hitzig,  and  Kuenen,  and  most  recent 
commentators.  It  is  unfitting  that  in  a  warning  to  submit  to 
Babylon  such  a  reference  to  Babylon's  fall  should  be  included. 
The  passage  rests  apparently  on  xxv.  12,  14,  and  the  enumeration 
of  the  kings  as  three  seems  to  be  due  to  a  combination  of  the 
reference  to  Evil-Merodach  (lii.  31  =  2  Kings  xxv.  27)  with  the 
narrative  of  Belshazzar's  overthrow.  It  had  the  advantage  of 
substituting  a  vaguer  definition  of  the  period  than  the  inexact 
seventy  years  which  is  found  in  the  parallel  passages. 

serve  themselves  of  him.    See  notes  on  xxv.  11,  14. 


44  JEREMIAH  27.  S-I2.     S  BS 

8  selves  of  him.  [BS]  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  the 
nation  and  the  kingdom  which  will  not  serve  the  same 
Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  and  that  will  not  put 
their  neck  under  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  that 
nation  will  I  punish,  saith  the  Lord,  with  the  sword,  and 
with  the  famine,  and  with  the  pestilence,  until  I  have 

9  consumed  them  by  his  hand.  But  as  for  you,  hearken  ye 
not  to  your  prophets,  nor  to  your  diviners,  nor  to  your 
dreams,  nor  to  your  soothsayers,  nor  to  your  sorcerers, 
which  speak  unto  you,  saying,  Ye  shall  not  serve  the  king  of 

10  Babylon  :  for  they  prophesy  a  lie  unto  you,  to  remove  you 
far  from  your  land ;  and  that  I  should  drive  you  out  and  ye 

1 1  should  perish.  But  the  nation  that  shall  bring  their  neck 
under  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  serve  him, 
that  ?iation  will  I  let  remain  in  their  own  land,  saith  the 
Lord  ;  and  they  shall  till  it,  and  dwell  therein. 

12  And  I  spake  to  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah  according  to 

8  continues  6,  or  perhaps  better  6*. 

will  not  serve  .  .  .  and  that :  to  be  omitted,  with  the  LXX. 
consunxed  them  by.    The  Hebrew  is  very  questionable  :  we 
should  probably  read  *  given  them  into,'  changing  one  letter. 

9.  Thefivekingsare  warned  not  to  trust  their  own  optimistic  fore- 
tellers of  the  future.  Five  classes  are  enumerated  ;,for  'dreams' 
we  should  probably  read  'dreamers'  with  several  versions),  but 
whether  the  writer  intended  us  to  discriminate  sharply  between 
them  is  uncertain.  We  may  have  merely  a  rhetorical  accumula- 
tion of  terms,  as  if  he  would  say,  Try  all  types  of  those  who  profess 
to  foretell  the  future ;  they  will  all  prophesy  smooth  things,  for 
the  heathen  have  only  false  prophets,  but  do  not  believe  them  or 
you  will  be  ruined.  Cf.  the  false  prophets  confronted  by  Micaiah, 
I  Kings  xxii.  5-28. 

10.  to  remove  you.  Certainly  it  was  not  the  intention  of  these 
prophets  to  secure  the  exile  of  their  nation,  in  which  they  would 
be  involved,  with  all  the  additional  odium  attached  to  discredited 
advisers,  but  if  they  had  deliberately  contemplated  such  an  issue 
they  could  not  have  given  advice  more  calculated  to  reach  it. 

and  that  .  .  .  perish.  This  clause  is  absent  in  the  LXX,  and 
has  probably  been  introduced  from  15. 

12.  Z  spake.  The  first  person  is  surprising  both  here  and  in  16, 


JEREMIAH  27.  13-16.     BS  45 

all  these  words,  saying,  Bring  your  necks  under  the  yoke 
of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  serve  him  and  his  people,  and 
live.    Why  will  ye  die,  thou  and  thy  people,  by  the  sword,  13 
by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pestilence^  as  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  concerning  the  nation  that  will  not  serve  the  king 
of  Babylon?    And  hearken  not  unto  the  words  of  the  14 
prophets  that  speak  unto  you,  saying,  Ye  shall  not  serve 
the  king  of  Babylon :  for  they  prophesy  a  lie  unto  you. 
For  I  have  not  sent  them,  saith  the  Lord,  but  they  15 
prophesy  falsely  in  my  name ;  that  I  might   drive  you 
out,  and  that  ye  might  perish,  ye,  and  the  prophets  that 
prophesy  unto  you.     Also  I  spake  to  the  priests  and  to  16 

since  in  the  preceding  verses  Yahweh  is  the  speaker  and  Jeremiah 
the  recipient  of  the  message.  Possibly  the  meaning  may  be  that 
Jeremiah's  message  to  the  kings  stillcontinues  to  the  effect  that  he 
had  given  the  same  counsel  to  Zedekiah,  the  priests  and  the  peo- 
ple, as  he  is  giving  to  them  (so  Stade).  But  such  awkwardness  of 
expression  would  stamp  the  passage  as  secondary.  It  would  be 
simpler  to  read  here  and  in  16  'said  Jeremiah,'  with  Giesebrecht 
(see  note  on  2),  or  *  And  thou  shalt  speak.' 

Bringr  your  necks.  The  counsel  is  formally  addressed  to  the 
king  only,  but  his  action  involves  that  of  many  more,  hence  the 
plural.  After  these  words  the  LXX  omits  the  rest  of  this  verse, 
the  whole  of  13,  and  14*  (as  far  as  '  saying').  Duhm  prefers  this, 
and  carries  this  preference  to  the  logical  conclusion  of  striking  out 
the  last  clause  of  14  and  the  whole  of  15.  But  it  is  more  probable 
that  the  Hebrew  is  correct,  since  the  bare  phrase  'bring  your 
necks '  is  an  otherwise  unexampled  expression.  The  Greek 
rendering  is  due  to  an  oversight  of  the  translator  or  a  scribe, 
whose  eye  passed  from  'serve'  in  12  to  '  serve  '  in  14,  He  also 
omitted  '  under  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babj'lon,'  because  through 
this  oversight  the  king  of  Babylon  was  mentioned  in  two  consecu- 
tive clauses. 

16-22.  In  these  verses  there  is  an  astonishing  divergence  be- 
tween the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint,  the  latter  containing  about 
a  quarter  only  of  the  former.  Verse  17  is  omitted,  similarly  18'', 
while  for  19-22  the  LXX  reads  simply  :  '  For  thus  saith  the  Lord, 
And  as  for  the  residue  of  the  vessels  which  the  king  of  Babylon  took 
not,  when  he  carried  away  Jeconiah  from  Jerusalem,  they  shall  be 
carried  to  Babylon,  saith  the  Lord.'  The  main  difference  between 
the  two  texts  is  that  the  LXX  simply  predicts  that  the  vessels  still 


46  JEREMIAH  27.  16.     BS 

all  this  people,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :   Hearken 


left  in  Jerusalem  will  be  taken  to  Babylon,  while  the  Hebrew  adds 
the  prediction  that  eventually  they  will  be  brought  back  again.  A 
good  many  scholars  prefer  the  LXX.  And  it  is  undeniable  that 
stylistically  it  is  much  superior,  and  that  we  may  well  suspect  that 
the  hand  of  a  diffuse  supplementer  has  here,  as  so  often  elsewhere, 
expanded  the  original  text.  Verse  17  interrupts  the  connexion  be- 
tween 16  and  18,  which  refer  to  the  Temple  vessels,  with  an  in- 
appropriate reiteration  of  the  theme  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  chap- 
ter. It  should  probably  be  omitted.  Verse  18^  ('  that  the  vessels 
...  to  Babylon  ')  is  not  indispensable,  but  its  omission  makes  the 
sentence  abrupt  and  ambiguous,  since  the  content  of  the  interces- 
sion might  either  be  that  the  vessels  should  be  brought  back  or  that 
the  vessels  which  remained  should  not  be  taken  away.  Accordingly 
the  Hebrew  is  here  to  be  preferred  ;  the  eye  of  the  scribe  or  trans- 
lator apparently  passed  from  bi  to  ki  (19).  The  enumeration  of  the 
vessels  that  were  left  behind  would  have  been  unnecessary  for 
Jeremiah's  contemporaries,  and  may  have  been  added  from  2  Kings 
XXV.  13  ff.  The  omission  in  the  LXX  of  any  prediction  that  the 
vessels  would  be  brought  back  might  be  due  to  the  fact  that  those 
specially  enumerated  in  19  were  not  restored,  since  the  Babylon- 
ians had  broken  them  up  for  convenience  of  transport  (2  Kings 
XXV.  13).  But  in  favour  of  the  LXX  it  may  be  urged  that  this 
prediction  of  restoration  is  hardly  likely  to  have  been  made  in  the 
same  breath  as  the  threat  that  the  vessels  would  be  carried  away, 
whereas  the  supplementers  loved  such  modifications  ;  the  expres- 
sion '  the  day  that  I  visit  them  '  is  very  strange  when  applied  to 
inanimate  objects  ;  and  the  insertion  of  the  clause  may  be  due  to  the 
account  of  the  restoration  of  the  vessels  given  in  Ezra  i.  7-11.  In 
this  passage  the  vessels  restored  are  simply  defined  as  those  'which 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  brought  forth  out  of  Jerusalem.'  Apparently 
this  covers  both  those  taken  away  when  Jehoiachin  was  deported 
to  Babylon,  and  those  taken  when  the  city  was  destroyed.  It 
seems  best  then  to  regard  the  prediction  of  restoration  as  a  later 
insertion  in  the  Hebrew  text.  It  may  be  added  that  Giesebrecht 
considers  the  LXX  text  to  have  arisen  largely  through  abbreviation 
of  the  Hebrew,  but  he  rejects  17  and  the  prediction  of  restoration 
in  22  ('  and  there  .  .  .  this  place  '),  with  the  latter  part  of  21  ('  con- 
cerning .  .  .  Jerusalem'), 

16.  the  priests.  A  warning  addressed  to  the  ecclesiastics  was  in 
Jeremiah's  time  always  in  place,  since  they  counted  for  so  much  in 
the  politics  of  the  day,  supporting  with  all  the  weight  of  their  re- 
ligious influence  the  struggle  for  freedom  from  Babylon  advocated  by 
the  prophets.  But  it  was  specially  appropriate  that  the  warning  not 
to  expect  the  Temple  vessels  to  be  restored,  but  rather  to  anticipate 


JEREMIAH  27.  17-22.     BS  47 

not  to  the  words  of  your  prophets  that  prophesy  unto 
you,  saying,  Behold,  the  vessels  of  the    Lord's  house 
shall  now  shortly  be  brought  again  from  Babylon  :   for 
they  prophesy  a  lie  unto  you.     Hearken  not  unto  them;  17 
serve  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  live :  wherefore  should 
this  city  become  a  desolation?     But  i£  they   be   pro-  i8 
phets,  and  if  the  word  of  the  Lord  be  with  them,  let 
them   now  make  intercession   to  the   Lord   of   hosts, 
that  the  vessels   which   are   left   in  the   house   of  the 
Lord,  and  in  the  house  of  the  king  of  Judah,  and  at 
Jerusalem,  go  not  to  Babylon.     For  thus  saith  the  Lord  19 
of  hosts  concerning  the  pillars,  and  concerning  the  sea, 
and  concerning  the  bases,  and  concerning  the  residue  of 
the  vessels  that  are  left  in  this  city,  which  Nebuchad-  20 
nezzar  king  of  Babylon  took  not,  when  he  carried  away 
captive  Jeconiah  the  son  of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah, 
from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon,  and  all  the  nobles  of  Judah 
and  Jerusalem;   yea,  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  21 
God  of  Israel,  concerning  the  vessels  that  are  left  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  house  of  the  king  of  Judah, 
and  at  Jerusalem  :  They  shall  be  carried  to  Babylon,  and  22 
there  shall  they  be,  until  the  day  that  I  visit  them,  saith 

that  all  the  vessels  which  remained  would  follow  them  to  Babylon, 
should  be  addressed  to  the  custodians  of  the  Temple  in  whose 
charge  they  were. 

now  shortly.  The  LXX  omits,  whether  righ%  it  is  difficult 
to  say,  but  the  words  give  the  correct  sense,  as  we  see  from  xxviii. 
3,  '  within  two  full  years/ 

19.  Cf.  Hi.  17.  See  Dr.  Skinner's  notes  on  i  Kings  vii.  15-39, 
2  Kings  XXV.  13-T7. 

20.  nobles.  The  word  is  of  Aramaic  origin.  It  occurs  in 
1  Kings  xxi.  8,  11 ;  if  it  is  not  a  gloss  in  this  passage,  as  some 
think,  its  use  is  probably  due  to  the  origination  of  the  narrative  in 
the  Northern  Kingdom.  Otherwise  it  is  a  late  word,  being  found 
especially  in  Nehemiah.  In  the  present  passage  it  is  perhaps  a 
sign  of  late  date  ;  if  so,  this  clause  is  a  latter  addition.  It  is  found 
also  in  xxxix.  6. 


48  JEREMIAH  27.  22—28.  i.     BSB 

the  Lord  ;  then  will  I  bring  them  up,  and  restore  them 
to  this  place. 
28  [B]  And  it  came  to  pass  the  same  year,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah,  in  the  fourth 
year,  in  the  fifth  month,  that  Hananiah  the  son  of  Azzur 
the  prophet,  which  was  of  Gibeon,  spake  unto  me  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  in  the  presence  of  the  priests  and  of 

zxviii.  1.  If  the  view  expressed  in  the  introduction  to  xxvii, 
xxviii  is  correct,  the  former  part  of  this  verse  should  be  transferred 
to  the  beginning  of  xxvii  (except  of  course  *in  the  same  year' 
and  the  reference  to  the  beginning  of  the  reign\  see  pp.  39.  40.  We 
should  probably  connect  this  chapter  closely  with  xxvii,  reading 
simply  '  Then  Hananiah  .  .  .  spake  saying.' 

Hananiah.  Nothing  further  is  known  of  him  than  is  recorded 
here.  On  the  estimate  we  should  form  of  him  and  the  '  false  pro- 
phets' in  general  see  Robertson  Smith's  article  '  Prophet,'  Enc.  Brit. 
9th  ed.,  vol.  xix,  p.  817,  with  Cheyne's  contribution  to  the  article 
*  Prophetic  Literature '  {Enc.  Bib.  3875-8),  which  quotes  the  most 
important  points  in  Robertson  Smith's  article,  and  A.  B.  Davidson's 
Old  Testament  Prophecy.,  pp.  285-308.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
Hananiah's  sincerity  ;  he  probably  believed  in  his  own  inspiration, 
and  was  fanatically  convinced  that  his  forecast  would  be  verified. 
But  he  and  his  class  lived  on  traditional  religion  with  its  blending 
of  old  and  new,  the  semi-heathenism  of  ancient  Israel  with  the 
prophecy  of  the  eighth  century  (especially  Isaiah's  doctrine  of  the 
indestructibility  of  Jerusalem)  and  the  ideals  of  the  reformers  ; 
they  went  on  repeating  formulae  once  valid,  now  obsolete;  they 
lacked  the  ethical  note  of  the  higher  prophecy,  while  they  laid 
emphasis  on  a  full  and  correct  ritual ;  hence  they  ignored  the  moral 
defects  of  the  people,  while  they  ardently  desired  that  ceremonial 
defects  should  be  repaired  by  the  restoration  of  the  Temple  vessels. 

Gibeon:  probably  to  be  identified  with  el-Jib,  a  mile  to  the  north 
of  Neby  Samivil,  where  Mizpah  of  Benjamin  stood  (seexli.  10-15), 
and  five  miles  north-west  of  Jerusalem.  It  was  famous  in  Hebrew 
history  as  the  home  of  the  Gibeonites  who  tricked  Joshua  into  an 
alliance,  and  the  defeat  of  the  Canaanite  confederacy  formed 
against  them  in  consequence  (Joshua  ix.  3 — x.  15)  ;  for  the  ghastly 
contest  between  the  twelve  warriors  of  Joab  and  the  twelve 
warriors  of  Abner  (2  Sam.  ii.  12-17)  >  ^^or  Joab's  treacherous 
murder  of  Amasa  (2  Sam.  xx.  8-12)  ;  for  the  choice  of  Solomon 
(i  Kings  iii.  4-15). 

unto  me :  should  probably  be  deleted,  since  the  narrative 
speaks  of  Jeremiah  in  the  third  person. 


JEREMIAH  28.  2-4.     B  49 

all  the  people,  saying,  Thus  speaketh  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  a 
God  of  Israel,  saying,  I  have  broken  the  yoke  of  the  king 
of  Babylon.    Within  two  full  years  will  I  bring  again  into  3 
this  place  all  the  vessels  of  the  Lord's  house,  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar king  of  Babylon  took  away  from  this  place, 
and  carried  them  to  Babylon  :  and  I  will  bring  again  to  4 
this  place  Jeconiah  the  son  of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah, 

2.  X  have  broken  the  yoke.  The  choice  of  the  figure  was  pre- 
sumably suggested  by  the  presence  of  Jeremiah  wearing  his  yoke, 
symbohc  of  the  Babylonian  suzerainty.  Hananiah  introduces 
his  prediction  with  the  prophetic  formula  claiming  Divine  origin 
for  it. 

3.  We  do  not  know  how  Hananiah  was  led  to  fix  on  two 
years  as  the  period  within  which  the  restoration  would  be  accom- 
plished. It  is  the  temptation  of  prophets  to  enhance  their  credit 
by  venturing  on  a  definiteness  in  prediction,  which  the  event  may 
or  may  not  justify.  Ambiguity  is  safer,  since  it  provides  ways  of 
escape,  as  the  givers  of  oracles  in  Greece  were  well  aware.  With 
prophets  like  Hananiah  and  Zedekiah,  the  opponent  of  Micaiah 
(i  Kings  xxii.  ii,  24),  the  wish  was  too  much  the  father  of  the 
thought :  the  sincere  but  lower  type  of  patriotism  which  dominated 
them,  together  with  the  religious  conviction  that  Yahweh  was  on 
their  side,  blinded  them  to  the  real  facts  ;  their  enthusiasm  led 
them  to  discount  the  odds  against  them.  At  the  same  time 
Hananiah  was  upheld  in  his  belief  by  the  sympathy  of  his  fellow 
prophets  and  the  people  generally,  also  by  the  confidence  felt  in 
the  neighbouring  nations  that  revolt,  at  least  if  supported  by  Egypt, 
would  be  successful.  He  probably  believed  what  he  said,  he  was 
apparently  in  the  prophetic  ecstasy  at  the  time,  and  mistook  the 
thoughts  which  surged  up  in  this  self-induced  state  for  Divine 
revelations. 

all :  omitted  by  the  LXX.  It  could  easily  fall  out  or  be 
inserted,  since  the  next  two  consonants  are  identical  with  it.  It 
is  omitted  in  4,  but  is  there  followed  by  similar  not  identical  con- 
sonants. It  should  probably  be  retained.  Observe  that  the 
vessels  of  the  Temple  take  precedence  even  of  the  king. 

that  Nebuchadnezzar  ...  to  Babylon  :  omitted  by  the  LXX. 

4.  The  LXX  reads  simply  '  and  Jeconiah  with  the  captives  of 
Judah,  for  I  will  break  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon.'  The 
additions  in  the  Hebrew  are  superfluous,  they  need  not  on  that 
account  be  secondary. 

Jeconiah.  That  while  Zedekiah  was  on  the  throne  Hananiah 
should  have  ventured  to  predict  in  so  many  words  the  restoration 
II  L 


50  Jeremiah  28. 5-7.   b 

with  all  the  captives  of  Judah,  that  went  to  Babylon,  saith 
the  Lord  :  for  I  will  break  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Baby- 

5  Ion.  Then  the  prophet  Jeremiah  said  unto  the  prophet 
Hananiah  in  the  presence  of  the  priests,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  all  the  people  that  stood  in  the  house  of  the 

6  Lord,  even  the  prophet  Jeremiah  said,  Amen  :  the  Lord 
do  so :  the  Lord  perform  thy  words  which  thou  hast 
prophesied,  to  bring  again  the  vessels  of  the  Lord's 
house,  and  all  them  of  the  captivity,  from  Babylon  unto 

7  this  place.     Nevertheless  hear  thou  now  this  word  that 

of  Jehoiachin,  describing  him  moreover,  if  the  Hebrew  text  is 
sound,  as  the  king  of  Judah,  is  remarkable.  Naturally  the  exiles 
regarded  him  as  still  the  legitimate  king,  and  probably  many  of 
those  left  behind  agreed  with  them,  but  Zedekiah  would  scarcely 
relish  the  prospect  of  deposition,  nor,  we  may  imagine,  would 
the  upstarts  who  had  supplanted  the  earlier  administrators.  Jere- 
miah in  his  reply  (6)  makes  no  specific  reference  to  Jehoiachin. 

5.  The  characteristic  insertion  of  Hhe  prophet'  before  the 
personal  name,  which  occurs  three  times  in  5,  6,  is  omitted  in  each 
case  in  the  LXX,  and  similarly  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter  and 
in  xxix. 

6.  As  a  patriot,  Jeremiah  could  wish  that  the  wound  of  his 
country  might  be  healed.  His  language  is  not  sarcastic  ;  for  the 
sake  of  the  exiles  themselves,  for  the  better  administration  of  the 
State,  he  would  be  glad  of  their  return.  But  he  is  not  led  astray 
by  his  preferences,  and  while  the  desire  that  it  might  be  so  is 
sincere,  he  is  assured  that  it  will  not  be  so.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that  he  does  not  meet  Hananiah's  '  Thus  saith  Yahweh '  by  a 
counter-oracle  at  this  point  (he  does  so  in  13),  but  after  an 
expression  of  sympathy  with  the  desire  itself,  by  an  argument 
from  history. 

7.  His  own  conviction  makes  no  impression  on  his  antagonists, 
his  prophetic  certainty  is  incommunicable.  He  must  therefore 
appeal  to  experience,  and  does  so  in  the  notable  utterance  of  7-9, 
which  shows  how  truly  Jeremiah  interpreted  the  significance  of 
the  great  prophets  in  whose  succession  he  knew  himself  to  stand. 
They  had  been  prophets  of  woe,  as  Jeremiah  himself;  only  when 
history  had  confirmed  the  prediction  of  a  prophet  who  spoke  of 
peace,  could  his  claim  that  God  had  sent  him  be  admitted.  So  the 
future  would  decide  whether  Hananiah  was  right ;  but  let  him 
and  the  people  ponder  well  the  significance  of  the  precedent.  The 
passage  is  very  important  for  its  testimony  to  the  predominantly 


JEREMIAH  28.  8-11.     B  51 

I  speak  in  thine  ears,  and  in  the  ears  of  all  the  people : 
The  prophets  that  have  been  before  me  and  before  thee  8 
of  old  prophesied  against  many  countries,  and  against 
great  kingdoms,  of  war,  and  of  evil,  and  of  pestilence. 
The  prophet  which  prophesieth  of  peace,  when  the  vs'ord  9 
of  the  prophet  shall  come  to  pass,  then  shall  the  prophet 
be  known,  ^  that  the  Lord  hath  truly  sent  him.     Then  10 
Hananiah  the  prophet  took  the  bar  from  off  the  prophet 
Jeremiah's  neck,  and  brake  it.     And  Hananiah  spake  in  n 
*  fOr,  whom  the  Lord  hath  truly  sent 

pessimistic  character  of  pre-exilic  prophecy  in  its  great  represent- 
atives. It  must  receive  its  due  weight  in  the  consideration  of  the 
much  debated  question  touching  the  extent  to  which  prophecies  of 
a  happy  future  were  uttered  by  the  prophets  to  whom  they  are  at 
present  assigned,  or  have  been  inserted  by  later  editors  in  their 
writings.  That  many  such  prophecies  originated  in  the  latter  way 
can  hardly  be  denied,  but  it  is  a  great  exaggeration  of  a  sound 
principle  to  relegate  such  passages  as  a  whole  to  the  post-exilic 
period. 

8.  The  scope  of  the  older  prophecy  is  to  be  observed  ;  it  was 
not  limited  to  Israel,  but  embraced  many  countries  and  great 
kingdoms  (see  vol.  i,  p.  78). 

evil.  It  is  tempting  to  adopt  the  reading  of  some  MSS.  and  of 
the  Vulgate  '  famine,'  since  it  is  awkward  that  the  general  term  for 
disaster  should  be  coupled  with  two  specific  types  of  calamity.  It  is 
not  unusual  for  Jeremiah  to  speak  of  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence. 
This  combination  may,  however,  be  responsible  for  the  reading 
'  famine '  here,  and  the  use  of  '  war '  instead  of  the  sword  suggests 
that  we  have  not  that  combination  in  this  passage.  The  LXX 
omits  'and  of  evil,  and  of  pestilence.' 

9.  The  close  of  the  sentence  is  rather  carelessly  expressed.  The 
meaning  required  is  that  then  it  shall  be  known  that  Yahweh  has 
truly  sent  that  prophet.  Till  then  the  Divine  origin  of  his  message 
must  remain  in  doubt. 

10.  Hananiah  is  not  at  all  impressed  by  Jeremiah's  appeal  to 
experience.  He  snaps  the  yoke  on  Jeremiah's  neck,  affirming 
that  thus  Yahweh  would  break  the  yoke  of  Babylon  from  the 
neck  of  the  nations.  The  act  is  something  more  than  a  mere 
symbol,  it  embodies  the  prophetic  word  which  is  endowed  with  a 
Divine  energy  that  works  out  its  own  fulfilment  (see  vol.  i, 
pp.  77,  78). 

11.  The  LXX  omits  'of  Nebuchadnezzar'  and  '  within  two  full 

E  2 


52  JEREMIAH  28.  u.     B 

the  presence  of  all  the  people,  saying,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  :  Even  so  will  I  break  the  yoke  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
king  of  Babylon  within  two  full  years  from  off  the  neck 
of  all  the  nations.     And  the  prophet  Jeremiah  went  his 


years,'  in  both  cases  correctly  ;  the  latter  addition  has  been  made 
from  2.     In  such  a  situation  brevity  is  a  sign  of  authenticity. 

Jeremiah  went  his  way.  It  is  surprising  that  he  makes  no 
reply.  Cornill  argues  forcibly  that  Jeremiah  could  not  have 
remained  silent  in  response  to  such  a  challenge  without  denying 
his  God  and  abandoning  his  people  to  a  lie.  Accordingly  he 
strikes  out  the  clause  as  a  gloss.  There  is  much  to  be  said  for  this 
view.  It  is  hard  to  beUeve  that  Jeremiah  was  shaken  in  his  own 
conviction  by  Hananiah's  action.  His  opponent  may  have  sin- 
cerely believed  in  his  own  inspiration,  he  may  have  snapped  the 
yoke  on  Jeremiah's  neck  in  a  prophetic  ecstasy,  and  the  ring  of 
certainty  may  have  been  heard  in  his  utterance  'Thus  saith 
Yahweh.'  But  Jeremiah's  own  convictions  were  not  such  as 
could  be  disturbed  by  prophetic  states,  even  though  they  were 
not  consciously  simulated,  or  prophetic  formulae,  sincerely  though 
they  might  be  repeated.  His  insight  into  God's  purpose  was  not 
a  thing  of  yesterda}',  his  assurance  was  too  deeply  rooted  to  bend 
before  this  breath  of  opposition.  He  was  a  candid  and  a  humble 
man  ;  but  he  could  not  have  seriously  asked  himself  the  question 
whether  Hananiah  might  not  after  all  be  right.  We  may  then 
rest  assured  that  whatever  he  did,  he  had  no  intention  of  sug- 
gesting that  he  doubted  his  own  message.  But  would  not  silence 
have  suggested  this  ?  It  might  no  doubt  be  urged  that  his  attitude 
had  been  too  long  and  too  well  known  for  such  an  inference  to  be 
drawn  ;  that  he  had  withstood  the  prophets  too  long  for  any  sig- 
nificance to  be  attached  to  his  leaving  Hananiah  in  possession  of 
the  field  ;  that  he  had  just  given  his  testimony  with  the  utmost 
directness.  And  yet  we  may  doubt  whether  he  could  have  risked 
the  moral  impression  which  would  have  been  made  on  the  assembly 
by  his  failure  to  meet  Hananiah's  action  with  any  reaffirmation  of 
the  message  with  which  he  had  been  charged.  To  strike  out  the 
clause  may  seem  a  violent  cutting  of  the  knot,  all  the  more  that 
its  very  difficulty  may  be  urged  in  favour  of  its  authenticity.  But, 
as  Cornill  points  out,  it  may  have  grown  out  of  the  words  '  Go 
and  tell  Hananiah '  in  13,  since  the  command  appeared  to  imply 
that  he  had  left  the  presence  of  his  antagonist.  The  verb  '  to  go,' 
however,  is  frequently  used  in  this  book  to  introduce  a  message 
with  which  the  prophet  is  entrusted,  and  it  seems  to  have  become 
a  mere  formula,  having  lost  its  proper  significance  (cf.  especially 
xxxix.  16).     Accordingly  we  should  not  press  it  here  to  imply 


JEREMIAH  28.  12-17.     B  53 

way.     Then  the  word  of  the  Lord  came   unto   Jere-  12 
miah,  after  that  Hananiah  the  prophet  had  broken  the 
bar  from  off  the  neck  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  saying, 
Go,  and  tell  Hananiah,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord:  13 
Thou  hast  broken  the  bars  of  wood ;  but  thou  shalt  make 
in  their  stead  bars  of  iron.     For  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  14 
hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  I  have  put  a  yoke  of  iron  upon 
the  neck  of  all  these  nations,  that  they  may  serve  Nebu- 
chadnezzar king  of  Babylon ;  and  they  shall  serve  him : 
and  I  have  given  him  the  beasts  of  the  field  also.     Then  15 
said  the  prophet  Jeremiah  unto  Hananiah  the  prophet, 
Hear  now,  Hananiah ;   the  Lord  hath  not  sent  thee ; 
but  thou  makest  this  people  to  trust  in  a  lie.     Therefore  16 
thus  saith  the  Lord,  Behold,  I  will  send  thee  away  from 
off  the  face  of  the  earth  :  this  year  thou  shalt  die,  because 
thou  hast  spoken  rebellion  against  the  Lord.     So  Hana-  17 
niah  the  prophet  died  the  same  year  in  the  seventh  month. 

that  the  two  prophets  had  been  parted.     And  12  reads  strangely 
if  they  had  been. 

13.  If  the  policy  of  Hananiah  was  followed,  they  would  be 
chastised  with  scorpions  instead  of  with  whips :  cf.  Amos  v.  19. 
The  yoke  of  Babylon  would  be  fastened  again  on  their  neck,  but 
a  yoke  far  heavier  and  more  galling,  and  one  which  no  strength 
of  theirs  could  break. 

thou  Shalt  make.  We  should  probably  read,  with  the  LXX, 
*  I  will  make  : '  cf.  14,  *  I  have  put  a  yoke  of  iron.'  It  is  hardly 
appropriate  to  represent  Hananiah  as  making  the  iron  bars,  since 
Jeremiah  had  made  the  wooden  bars  at  God's  command. 

14.  the  beasts  of  the  field:   see  note  on  xxvii.  6. 

16.  I  will  send  thee  away.  As  Hitzig  points  out,  the  phrase 
is  chosen  with  reference  to  '  Yahweh  hath  not  sent  thee '  in  15. 

because  .  .  .  the  LOBD.  This  clause  is  omitted  in  the  LXX. 
It  is  a  quotation  from  Deut.  xiii.  5.  It  is  appropriate  here  in  so 
far  as  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is  directed  against  false 
prophets,  inappropriate  since  the  'defection'  there  denounced  is 
an  incitement  to  idolatry. 

17.  The  fact  of  Hananiah's  death,  told  with  such  impressive 
brevity,  without  comment  or  elaboration,  is  to  be  accepted  as 
historical;    so   that  while  his  prediction  that  within  two  years 


54  '  JEREMIAH  29.  i.     B 

Now  these  are  the  words  of  the  letter  that  Jeremiah 

Babylon's  3'oke  should  be  broken  was  discredited,  Jeremiah's 
prediction  that  within  that  year  Hananiah  should  die  was  verified 
in  less  than  three  months.  The  LXX  is  briefer  still,  *  And  he 
died  in  the  seventh  month,*  The  swift  fulfilment  may  have  done 
something  to  enhance  the  respect  paid  to  Jeremiah's  advice,  and 
take  the  heart  out  of  the  fanatics  who  were  screaming  for  a  vigor- 
ous foreign  policy.  Cheyne  says :  '  This  might  be  a  case  of 
second  sight.  CL  St.  Adamnan's  account  of  a  prophecy  of  St. 
Columba  that  a  certain  boy  would  die  at  the  end  of  the  week ' 
(  The  Two  Religions  of  Israel,  p.  58).  He  had  treated  the  narrative 
more  sceptically  in  his  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Kingdom  of  Judah, 
p.  77. 

xxix.   Jeremiah  Counsels  the  Exiles  to  settle  down  in 
Babylon,  since  there  is  no  Hope  of  Speedy  Release. 

The  links  which  connect  this  chapter  with  the  two  preceding 
have  been  already  indicated  in  the  Introduction  to  xxvii-xxix  (see 
pp.  38,  39).  Schmidt  regards  the  correspondence  with  Babylon  as 
*  scarcely  historical '  {Enc.  Bib.  3387)  ;  and  Cheyne  considers  the 
central  statement  of  the  chapter  that  the  Babylonian  oppression 
shall  last  only  for  a  time  to  be  certainly  unauthentic  {Enc.  Bib. 
3879)  ;  but  recent  commentators  have  for  the  most  part  recognized 
a  very  substantial  historical  element  in  the  chapter,  which  in  its 
original  form  was  probably  included  in  Baruch's  biography  of 
Jeremiah.  The  detailed  references  to  persons  and  events  can 
hardly  rest  on  imagination,  and  the  situation  to  which  the  letter 
is  addressed  is  entirely  natural  with  a  people  whose  theological 
beliefs  would  predispose  them  to  anticipate  that  the  exile  would 
prove  a  very  temporary  episode  in  their  history.  Equally  con- 
vinced with  Jeremiah  (xxiv)  of  their  superiority  to  the  rotten 
remnant  left  behind  in  Jerusalem,  they  could  not,  without  a  com- 
plete inversion  of  their  settled  convictions,  have  thought  of  their 
own  exile  as  permanent  while  Jerusalem  continued  to  stand.  And 
since  they  could  not  bring  themselves  to  believe  in  the  destruction 
of  Yahweh's  city,  the  downfall  of  the  State,  and  the  captivity  of 
the  people,  they  naturally  anticipated  a  speedy  return  to  Pales- 
tine, and  were  encouraged  by  their  prophets  in  this  cherished 
delusion.  That  Jeremiah,  while  opposing  this  expectation  among 
those  who  were  left  behind,  sought  also  to  disabuse  the  exiles,  is 
only  natural,  especially  in  view  of  his  more  friendly  esteem  for 
them.  The  date  of  the  letter  is  not  clear.  But  we  may  assume 
that  it  was  sent  quite  early  in  Zedekiah's  reign,  probably  in  596 
or  595  B.  c,  when  the  exiles  had  been  only  a  short  time  in  their 
new  home.  It  was  not,  we  may  assume,  sent  in  594  B.C.,  since 
in  that  year  Zedekiah,  instead  of  sending  messengers  to  Babylon, 


JEREMIAH  29.  i.     B  55 

the  prophet  sent  from  Jerusalem  unto  the  residue  of  the 
elders  of  the  captivity,  and  to  the  priests,  and  to  the 

paid  a  personal  visit  to  that  city  (li.  59).  Accordingly  we  must 
place  the  incidents  of  this  chapter  at  a  somewhat  earlier  period 
than  those  of  xxvii-xxviii.  On  the  expansion  the  original  form 
has  undergone  see  the  notes. 

xxix.  1-9.  This  is  the  letter  sent  by  Jeremiah,  by  the  hand  of 
Zedekiah's  messengers,  to  those  taken  to  Babylon  with  Jeconiah. 
Yahweh  bids  you  settle  down  in  your  own  homes,  marry  and  rear 
families,  and  seek  the  peace  of  Babylon,  for  it  is  your  own  peace. 
And  do  not  be  deceived  by  your  prophets,  who  lie  to  you  in  My 
Name. 

10-14.  For  after  seventy  years  I  will  bring  you  back,  since  I 
entertain  thoughts  of  good  for  you.  You  will  pray  and  I  will  hear, 
you  will  seek  Me  with  all  your  heart  and  find  Me,  and  I  will 
gather  you  from  all  the  nations  of  your  dispersion. 

16-19.  for  on  those  who  are  left  behind  in  Jerusalem  I  am 
sending  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence,  and  will  make  them  like 
uneatable  figs.  They  shall  be  an  execration  among  all  the  nations 
of  their  dispersion,  because  they  have  not  listened  to  My  words. 

20,  15,  21-23.  And  listen,  you  that  are  exiles.  Because  you  say 
Yahweh  has  raised  up  prophets  for  us  in  Babylon,  I  will  give  Ahab 
and  Zedekiah  the  false  prophets  into  Nebuchadnezzar's  hand,  and  he 
shall  slay  them  by  a  death  which  shall  become  a  proverb  among 
you  ;  for  they  have  committed  adultery  and  spoken  lies  in  My 
Name. 

24-32.  Shemaiah  has  sent  to  Jerusalem,  remonstrating  with 
Zephaniah  the  overseer  of  the  Temple  for  his  remissness  in  not 
punishing  Jeremiah  for  his  letter  to  the  exiles  bidding  them,  in 
view  of  the  long  captivity  before  them,  settle  down  in  Babylon. 
Zephaniah  reads  the  letter  to  Jeremiah,  who  predicts  that  Shemaiah 
for  his  false  prophecies  shall  have  no  man  to  dwell  among  this 
people,  and  shall  not  see  the  good  which  Yahweh  will  do  to  it. 

xxix.  1.  the  residite  of  the  elders.  This  has  occasioned  much 
discussion.  The  LXX  reads  simply  'the  elders,'  and  this  is 
adopted  by  Giesebrecht  and  Rothstein.  It  is,  however,  as  Duhm 
and  Cornill  urge,  much  easier  to  understand  the  omission  than 
the  insertion  of  the  word  rendered  '  the  residue  of.'  Several 
explanations  have  been  offered.  Some  think  that  the  residue  is 
mentioned,  since  some  might  have  died  on  the  journey  or  since 
their  arrival  in  Babylonia.  But  the  term  'residue'  suggests  a 
depletion  of  their  numbers  greater  than  is  at  all  likely  from  such 
a  cause  in  so  short  a  period  ;  moreover,  the  gaps  made  by  death 
would  have  been  filled  up.  And  even  had  some  of  the  elders  died, 
it  would  have  been  quite  irrelevant  for  the  writer  to  take  account 


56  JEREMIAH  29.  2, 3.     B 

prophets,  and  to  all  the  people,  whom  Nebuchadnezzar 
had  carried  away  captive  from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon : 

2  (after  that  Jeconiah  the  king,  and  the  queen-mother,  and 
the  eunuchs,  a7id  the  princes  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and 
the  craftsmen,  and  the  smiths,  were  departed  from  Jeru- 

3  salem ;)  by  the  hand  of  Elasah  the  son  of  Shaphan,  and 


of  this  in  the  choice  of  his  expression.  Hitzig  explains  that  the 
phrase  means  the  elders  who  are  not  also  priests  or  prophets,  but 
the  author  does  not  say  the  priests  and  prophets  and  the  rest  of 
the  elders,  because  there  would  be  priests  and  prophets  who  were 
not  elders.  But  this  explanation,  though  approved  by  Graf,  can 
hardly  be  accepted.  If  the  normal  order  had  been  felt  to  give  an 
incorrect  suggestion,  then  the  sentence  would  have  been  cast  in 
a  different  form  rather  than  the  order  inverted  in  this  unnatural 
way.  Duhm  thinks  that  there  may  have  been  an  attempt  at 
escape  or  opposition  to  regulations,  which  had  cost  some  of  the 
elders  their  liberty  or  their  lives.  Baruch  might  have  given  an 
account  of  this,  or  he  might  have  presupposed  it  as  well  known. 
This  is  possible,  but  Jeremiah  would  probably  have  alluded  to  it 
in  his  letter  ;  it  would  have  served  admirably  to  enforce  his  exhor- 
tation. The  choice  seems  to  lie  between  the  omission  of  the  word, 
with  the  LXX,  and  the  suggestion  made  by  Duhm,  which  is 
accepted  by  Cornill.  The  elders  seem  to  have  had  a  good  deal  of 
authority  entrusted  to  them  by  the  Babylonians  ;  they  are  promin- 
ent in  Ezekiel.  Duhm  omits  the  reference  to  the  priests  and 
prophets,  and  15  does  not  favour  the  view  that  the  prophets  were 
explicitly  addressed.  We  should  probably  omit,  with  the  LXX, 
the  relative  sentence  '  whom  ,  .  .  Babylon,'  and,  if  so,  perhaps 
also  the  words  *  and  to  all  the  people.' 

2.  This  is  struck  out  by  Cornill  and  others.  It  breaks  the 
connexion  between  i  and  3,  and  is  largely  taken  from  xxiv.  i'', 
2  Kings  xxiv.  12-16.  Giesebrecht  retains  the  reference  to  the 
deportation  of  Jeconiah  to  Babylon,  but  regards  *  and  the  queen- 
mother  .  .  .  the  smiths  *  as  an  expansion  based  on  the  passages 
mentioned.  This  is  better  than  the  elimination  of  the  whole  verse, 
since  the  note  of  time  is  not  superfluous. 

the  queen-motlier :  see  notes  on  xiii.  18,  19,  xxii.  25  f. 
smiths:  see  note  on  xxiv,  i. 

3.  The  object  of  this  diplomatic  mission  is  unknown  ;  perhaps  it 
was  in  charge  of  the  yearly  tribute.  Elasah  was  apparently  the 
brother  of  Ahikam,  mentioned  as  Jeremiah's  protector  in  xxvi.  24 
(see  notp),  and  of  the  Gemariah  in  whose  chamber  Baruch  read 
the  roll  (xxxvi.  10),  and  who  interceded  with  Jehoiakim  not  to 


JEREMIAH  29.  4-7.     B  57 

Gemariah  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  (whom  Zedekiah  king  of 
Judah  sent  unto  Babylon  to  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of 
Babylon,)  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  4 
of  Israel,  unto  all  the  captivity,  whom  I  have  caused  to 
be  carried  away  captive  from  Jerusalem  unto  Babylon : 
Build  ye  houses,  and  dwell  in  them ;  and  plant  gardens,  5 
and  eat  the  fruit  of  them ;  take  ye  wives,  and  beget  sons  6 
and  daughters ;  and  take  wives  for  your  sons,  and  give 
your  daughters  to  husbands,  that  they  may  bear  sons  and 
daughters  ;  and  multiply  ye  there,  and  be  not  diminished. 
And  seek  the  peace  of  the  city  whither  I  have  caused  7 


burn  it  (xxxvi.  25).  From  the  fact  that  he  took  Jeremiah's  letter 
we  may  infer  that,  like  his  brothers,  he  was  friendly  to  the  prophet. 
Of  Gemariah  the  son  of  Hilkiah  (of  course  to  be  distinguished 
from  his  namesake  the  son  of  Shaphan)  we  know  nothing  further. 
He  was  not,  we  may  take  it  for  granted,  Jeremiah's  brother,  but 
may  have  been  the  son  of  the  chief  priest  of  the  Temple. 

5.  Jeremiah  dissuades  the  exiles  from  regarding  their  stay  in 
Babj'lonia  as  just  a  passing  experience.  They  must  make  up  their 
minds  to  a  long  period  of  captivity.  They  must  look  on  Babylon 
as  their  home,  build  houses  and  plant  gardens,  renouncing  the 
pleasing  delusion  that  they  would  soon  be  restored  to  their  old 
homes  in  Jerusalem. 

6.  This  verse  seems  to  presuppose  that  just  as  some  refused  to 
build  and  plant  in  this  interim  condition,  so  they  refused  to  marry. 
The  refusal  would  rest  on  different  grounds  ;  houses  and  gardens 
involved  labour  and  expense,  which  would  be  largely  wasted  if 
they  left  Babylon.  Wives  and  children  they  could  take  back  with 
them,  but  young  children  would  add  greatly  to  the  difficulties  of 
the  journey.  Cornill  thinks  that  a  considerable  proportion  of  the 
exiles  would  be  young,  unmarried  men,  and  that  there  would  not 
be  Jewish  wives  for  them  in  at  all  adequate  numbers.  He  suggests 
that  Jeremiah  may  have  meant  that  instead  of  remaining  unmarried 
in  the  hope  of  speedy  return  home,  they  should  marry  Gentile 
women. 

that  .  .  .  daug'hters  :  omitted  in  LXX. 

7.  The  hearts  of  the  exiles  would  naturally  be  hot  with  hatred 
for  the  oppressor,  and  if  they  prayed  with  reference  to  him,  it 
would  be  for  his  downfall.  But  Jeremiah  bids  them  acquire 
houses  and  gardens,  that  they  may  forge  links  which  will  bind 
them  to  the  new  land,  and  make  its  interest  identical  with  their 


58  JEREMIAH  29.  8-to.     B 

you  to  be  carried  away  captive,  and  pray  unto  the  Lord 

8  for  it :  for  in  the  peace  thereof  shall  ye  have  peace.  For 
thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  Let  not 
your  prophets  that  be  in  the  midst  of  you,  and  your 
diviners,  deceive  you,  neither  hearken  ye  to  your  dreams 

9  which  ye  "-cause  to  be  dreamed.  For  they  prophesy 
falsely  unto  you  in  my  name :    I   have  not  sent  them, 

10  saith  the  Loun.     For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  After  seventy 
*  tOi",  (beam 

own.  They  are  to  pray  for  its  peace ;  it  is  true  the  injunction  is 
recommended  by  a  self-regarding  motive,  but  it  was  inspired  by 
wise  regard  for  their  welfare,  and  altruistic  appeals  would  have 
been  wasted  on  such  an  audience. 

the  city.  If  the  text  is  correct,  the  term  probably  indicates 
no  one  city,  such  as  Babylon,  but  the  city  in  which  you  may 
happen  to  be.  The  exiles  would  not  be  concentrated  in  one  place. 
But  we  should  probably  read  'the  land.' 

8,  9.  Duhm  regards  these  verses  as  an  insertion,  because  no 
account  is  given  of  what  the  false  prophets  said,  and  because  it  is 
not  mentioned  till  15  that  the  exiles  believed  that  they  had 
prophets  among  them.  The  former  reason  is  unimportant  ;  what 
all  knew  there  was  no  need  to  repeat,  and  the  context  makes  it 
plain.  The  latter  reason,  which  has  decided  Corniil  to  follow 
Duhm,  has  more  substance.  But  it  is  not  at  all  decisive  ;  8,  9 
contain  a  warning  against  their  prophets  in  general  ;  15  introduces, 
in  its  true  connexion,  a  threat  against  two  prophets. 

ye  cause  to  be  dreamed.  The  causative  conjugation  of  this 
verb  occurs  nowlicre  else,  and  the  thought  itself  is  somewhat 
strange.  If  the  text  is  correct,  the  meaning  is  apparently  that  the 
people  consulted  the  prophets  and  set  them  dreaming  that  Uiey 
might  be  able  to  give  them  an  oracle.  It  is  possible  that  the  con- 
jugation is  used  in  the  simple  sense  *yc  dream.'  It  would  be 
better,  however,  to  secure  this  sense,  which  is  given  by  the  LXX, 
Syriac,  and  Vulgate,  by  striking  out  the  initial  letter  of  the  verb  as 
due  to  mistaken  repetition  of  the  final  letter  of  the  pronoun.  It 
would  perhaps  be  better  still  to  read  'they  dream'  i^as  Corniil); 
it  is  not  the  people  generally  who  go  to  the  prophets  to  have  their 
dreams  interpreted,  but,  as  xxiii.  25-28  shows,  the  prophets  who 
give  lying  oracles  on  the  basis  of  their  dreams.  If  so,  we  should 
also,  of  course,  read  'their  dreams.' 

10.  This  verse  ought  not  to  be  omitted  ;  it  is  most  appropriate 
that  Jeremiah's  counsel  should  be  driven  home  by  the  remindcf 


JEREMIAH  29.  11-14.     B  59 

years  be  accomplished  for  Babylon,  I  will  visit  you,  and 
perform  my  good  word  toward  you,  in  causing  you  to 
return  to  this  place.     For  I  know  the  thoughts  that  u 
I  think  toward  you,  saith  the  Lord,  thoughts  of  peace, 
and  not  of  evil,  to  give  you  ^  hope  in  your  latter  end. 
And  ye  shall  call  upon  me,  and  ye  shall  go  and  pray  unto  la 
me,  and  I  will  hearken  unto  you.   And  ye  shall  seek  me,  ^^ 
and  fmd  me,  when  ye  shall  search  for  me  with  all  your 
heart.     And  I  will  be  found  of  you,  saith  the  Lord,  and  M 
I  will  ^turn  again  your  captivity,  and  I  will  gather  you 

'  Heb.  a  latter  end  and  hope.  ^  Or,  return  to 

that  the  Babylonian  dominion  will  last  seventy  years,  and  only 
when  this  period  is  accomplished  will  the  exile  be  brought  to  an 
end.     On  the  'seventy  years'  see  note  on  xxv.  11. 

11.  I  know.  The  pronoun  is  emphatic,  similarly  *I  think.* 
Several  scholars  take  the  meaning  to  be,  The  prophets  are  ignorant 
but  I  know.  But  probably  this  is  not  the  contrast  intended.  The 
point  is  rather  that  although  the  long  delay  may  give  the  impres- 
sion that  Yahweh's  attitude  to  Judah  is  one  of  settled  hostility, 
He  has  from  the  very  beginning  of  her  misfortune  entertained 
purposes  of  granting  her  a  future  and  a  hope.  i.  e.  a  future  full  of 
hope.  The  people  will  say  '  From  Yahweh  my  waj'  is  hid'  (Isa. 
xl.  27);  but  His  wrath  does  not  hide  from  Him  His  ultimate  goal 
of  mercy,  He  keeps  it  steadily  in  view  all  the  time. 

12-14.  The  LXX  has  a  much  shorter  text.  In  12  it  reads 
*  And  pray  unto  me  and  I  will  hearken  unto  you.'  In  14  it  omits 
everything  after  the  first  clause,  *  And  I  will  be  found  of  you.* 
In  the  latter  point  it  is  plainly  superior  ;  the  exiles  addressed  were 
in  Babylonia,  not  dispersed  among  the  nations,  and  the  verse  is 
composed  of  stock  phrases.  It  is  not  so  clear  that  the  omission 
in  12  is  original  ;  the  text,  however,  can  hardly  be  correct :  'and 
ye  shall  go'  yields  no  satisfactory  sense  and  spoils  the  parallelism. 
Several  suggestions  have  been  made;  the  sense  required  is,  'And 
j'e  shall  call  upon  me.  and  I  will  hear  you  ;'  i.  e.  though  you  are 
banished  from  My  land  and  My  sanctuary,  I  still  hear  the  cry 
from  your  distant  home. 

14.  Z  will  be  found  of  yon :  LXX  reads  '  I  will  appear  to  you  :* 
cf.  xxxi.  3.  If  this  is  part  of  the  letter,  the  LXX  is  to  be  preferred, 
since  '  find'  occurs  in  13. 

turn  again  your  captivity.   The  original  sense  of  this  expres- 
sion is  still  much  disputed  ;  since  Ewald  first  proposed  it,  many 


6o  JEREMIAH  29.  15.     B 

from  all  tne  nations,  and  from  all  the  places  whither 

I  have  driven  you,  saith  the  Lord;  and  I  will  bring 

you  again  unto  the  place  whence  I  caused  you  to  be 

15  carried  away  captive.    For  ye  have  said.  The  Lord  hath 


have  held  the  view  that  it  meant  originally 'to  reverse  the  fortunes 
of,'  a  sense  which  it  bears  in  Job  xHi.  10  and  apparently  in  Ezek. 
xvi.  53  (*of  Sodom  and  her  daughters').  In  most  cases,  however, 
the  rendering  in  R.V.  is  applicable,  and  may  well  represent  the 
original  meaning.  See  Driver's  note  on  Deut.  xxx.  3,  with  the 
supplementary  note  in  the  Addenda. 

15-20.  These  verses  create  serious  difficulties.  Verse  15  con- 
nects with  nothing  in  the  preceding  context  but  8,  9,  nor  in  what 
follows  till  we  reach  21.  Moreover  in  the  LXX  (except  in  Lucian's 
recension)  16-20  is  omitted.  This  in  itself  suggests  at  least  that 
15  should  stand  immediately  before  21,  as  it  does  in  the  LXX  and 
also  in  Lucian's  recension  where  it  comes  after  16-20.  The 
question  as  to  the  originaUty  of  16-20  is  somewhat  more  difficult, 
but  the  weight  of  evidence  is  strongly  in  favour  of  its  exclusion 
from  the  text.  The  omission  in  the  LXX  might  be  accounted  for 
by  the  passing  of  the  scribe's  eye  from  'Babylon'  in  15  to  'Babylon' 
in  20,  or  assuming  that  15  stood  before  21,  from  'For'  in  16  to  '  For' 
in  15.  It  is  also  true  that  the  connexion  of  15  with  13  is  not  easy. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  why  a  post-exilic  editor  should  have  inserted 
the  passage,  the  distinction  between  the  Jews  in  exile  with  Jehoia- 
chin  and  those  in  Jerusalem  with  Zedekiah  having  lost  all  signifi* 
cance  with  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  State.  The  inclusion  of 
the  verses  in  Lucian's  recension  also  favours  their  authenticity. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  passage  has  little  relevance  in  this  context; 
why  should  Jeremiah  break  off  from  his  counsel  to  the  exiles  and 
deal  with  the  situation  in  Jerusalem  ?  Why  should  he  say  that 
Yahweh  will  make  those  left  in  Jerusalem  'like  vile  figs,'  which 
implies  that  xxiv  was  known  to  the  readers  ;  and  yet  with  a  change 
in  the  application,  the  figure  referring  in  xxiv  to  character,  here 
to  destiny?  In  18,  moreover,  the  writer  forgets  his  assumed  situa- 
tion before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  speaks  of  the  dispersion  as 
already  accomplished  ;  similarly  in  19,  *  Ye  would  not  hear,'  if  the 
text  is  correct,  can  hardly  be  addressed  to  the  first  group  of  exiles 
as  a  reason  for  the  dispersion  which  had  overtaken  the  Jews  left 
behind  with  Zedekiah.  Some  of  these  difficulties  are  removed  by 
the  omission  of  17'*  (from  'I  will  make ')-i9,  and  Giesebrecht 
considers  that  the  rest  of  the  passage  ought  to  be  regarded  as  an 
authentic  part  of  the  letter.  But  this  excision  is  itself  a  rather 
arbitrary  critical  operation,  and  destroys  the  link  of  contrast 
between  19  and  20,  'ye  would  not  hear  .   .  .  Hear  ye  therefore,' 


JEREMIAH  29.  16-18.     BS  6i 

raised  us  up  prophets  in  Babylon,  [s]  For  thus  saith  16 
the  Lord  concerning  the  king  that  sitteth  upon  the 
throne  of  David,  and  concerning  all  the  people  that 
dwell  in  this  city,  your  brethren  that  are  not  gone  forth 
with  you  into  captivity ;  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts :  17 
Behold,  I  will  send  upon  them  the  sword,  the  famine, 
and  the  pestilence,  and  will  make  them  like  vile  figs, 
that   cannot  be  eaten,  they   are   so  bad.     And   I   will  18 

It  is  also  questionable  whether,  if  the  verses  are  retained  even  in 
this  modified  form,  the  transposition  of  15  to  follow  ao  and  precede 
21  can  be  justified.  It  is  not  improbably  a  rearrangement  due  to 
Lucian  himself.  But  if  15  immediately  followed  13  (or  14  if  that 
be  authentic),  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  16-20  is  no  part  of 
the  original  text,  and  that  Lucian's  inclusion  of  it  does  not  repre- 
sent the  true  LXX.  It  is  a  late  insertion  based  on  earlier  passages 
in  the  book,  especially  xxiv.  8-10,  and  crowded  with  characteristic 
expressions.  Why  a  later  writer  should  have  inserted  it  is  not 
clear ;  possibly  it  reflects  a  post-exilic  estimate  of  the  relative  merits 
of  the  Jews  in  Babylon  and  those  in  the  dispersion,  together  with 
*  the  people  of  the  land  '  in  Palestine.  But  this  is  on  the  whole 
improbable,  and  we  must  content  ourselves  with  the  melancholy 
reflection  that  a  reader  thought  the  insertion  of  Jeremiah's  unfavour- 
able judgement  on  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem  would  improve  and 
complete  the  prophet's  letter  to  the  exiles  in  Babylonia. 

15.  Per.  Since  this  verse  is  to  be  connected  with  21,  we  should 
probably  render  '  Because.'  The  exiles  congratulated  themselves 
that  though  they  had  been  banished  from  Yahweh's  land.  His 
power  extended  even  to  Babylon,  and  there  He  raised  up  prophets 
to  announce  that  He  would  soon  break  the  Babylonian  yoke. 
Ezekicl,  who  was  quite  one  with  Jeremiah  in  his  judgement  of  the 
situation,  did  not  receive  his  call  till  a  few  years  later.  Jeremiah 
warns  his  readers  that  they  will  be  able  to  estimate  the  value  to 
be  attached  to  the  message  of  these  prophets  by  the  fate  which  is 
soon  to  overtake  them,  and  learn  how  premature  their  rejoicing  had 
been. 

16.  thekingr*.  i.e.  Zcdekiah. 

17.  The  former  part  of  the  verse  is  taken  from  xxiv.  10,  the 
latter  from  xxiv.  8.  The  word  rendered  <  vile  '  is  much  stronger 
than  the  corresponding  word  in  xxiv ;  it  is  derived  from  the  same 
root  as  the  word  rendered  '  a  horrible  thing '  in  v.  30. 

18.  The  former  part  of  the  verse  is  largely  a  repetition  of  17. 
The  latter  part  is  based  on  xxiv.  9  (cf.  also  xv.  4  with  the  note). 
The  details  are  varied  from  xxiv.  9  j  in  particular  '  I  shall  drive ' 


62  JEREMIAH  29.  19-21.     SB 

pursue  after  them  with  the  sword,  with  the  famine,  and 
with  the  pestilence,  and  will  deliver  them  to  be  ^  tossed 
to  and  fro  among  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  to  be  an 
execration,  and  an  astonishment,  and  an  hissing,  and  a 
reproach,  among  all  the  nations  whither  I  have  driven 

19  them  :  because  they  have  not  hearkened  to  my  words, 
saith  the  Lord,  wherewith  I  sent  unto  them  my  servants 
the  prophets,  rising  up  early  and  sending  them ;  but  ye 

20  would  not  hear,  saith  the  Lord.  Hear  ye  therefore  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  all  ye  of  the  captivity,  whom  I  have 
sent  away  from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon. 

21  [B]  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel, 

*  fOr,  a  terror  unto 

becomes  '  I  have  driven,'  and  the  tense  ought  not  to  be  assimilated 
to  that  in  xxiv.  9,  the  interpolator  betrays  himself  by  it. 

19.  Cf.  vii.  25,  26,  xi.  7,  8,  XXV.  4. 

ye  would  not  hear.  Perhaps  we  should  read  *  they  would  not 
hear,'  but  it  is  more  likely  that  the  interpolator  has  here  again 
forgotten  his  assumed  standpoint. 

20.  This  verse  is  designed  as  a  link  to  connect  the  interpolated 
verses  with  the  oracle  that  follows. 

all  ye  .  .  .  Babylon :  cf.  xxiv.  5. 

21.  This  verse  completes  the  sentence  begun  in  15.  We  know 
nothing  of  Ahab  and  Zedekiah  beyond  what  we  learn  from  these 
passages.  The  LXX  omits  the  names  of  their  fathers,  but  we  may 
be  sure  that  these  names  are  not  inventions  of  a  scribe.  The 
execution  of  these  prophets  would  be  a  punishment  for  treasonable 
utterances,  such  as  the  proclamation  of  the  approaching  downfall 
of  Babylon  and  liberation  of  the  Jews.  The  reference  to  the  mode 
of  death  may  possibly  have  been  added  to  bring  the  prediction  into 
more  explicit  conformity  with  the  event  which  doubtless  ensued 
as  described  in  22.  But  it  may  be  an  original  part  of  the  letter. 
It  is  true  that  there  is  a  play  on  the  name  Kolaiah  in  the  word 
rendered  '■  roasted '  (as  there  is  also  in  the  word  for  'curse ').  But 
we  have  no  valid  reason  for  the  inference  that  this  gave  rise  to  the 
story  that  they  were  put  to  death  in  this  way  ;  though  this  parti- 
cular word  was  presumably  chosen  for  the  sake  of  the  assonance, 
and  we  are  probably  to  regard  the  word  as  equivalent  to  *  bum,' 
not  necessarily  to  roast  before  a  fire  or  bake  in  an  oven.  Jere- 
miah would  be  aware  that  such  a  punishment,  almost  unknown 


JEREMIAH  29.  22,  23.     B  63 

concerning  Ahab  the  son  of  Kolaiah,and  concerning  Zede- 
kiah  the  son  of  Maaseiah,  which  prophesy  a  lie  unto  you 
in  my  name :  Behold,  I  will  deliver  them  into  the  hand 
of  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon ;  and  he  shall  slay 
them  before  your  eyes;  and  of  them  shall  be  taken  up  22 
a  curse  by  all  the  captives  of  Judah  which  are  in  Babylon,  - 
saying,  The  Lord  make  thee  like  Zedekiah  and  like  Ahab, 
whom  the  king  of  Babylon  roasted  in  the  fire :  because  23 


among  the  Hebrews  (Gen.  xxxviii.  24,  Lev.  xxi.  9),  was  in  use 
among  the  Babylonians  (cf.  Dan.  iii). 

22.  Then  their  names  would  still  be  on  men's  lips,  no  longer  as 
prophets,  but  in  a  gruesome  formula  of  imprecation  used  by  exiles 
to  fellow  exiles.  Cursing  in  the  East,  however,  goes  to  much 
greater  lengths  in  expression  than  is  common  in  the  West,  and  is 
not  to  be  taken  too  seriously,  even  though  the  Divine  Name  is  in- 
voked for  its  fulfilment. 

23.  The  fate  of  these  two  prophets  is  due  to  their  immorality 
and  their  unjustifiable  claim  to  speak  as  Yahweh's  messengers 
(for  the  combination  of  the  two  in  the  prophets  of  Jerusalem  see 
xxiii.  14).  Obviously  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  punish  them  with 
their  horrible  death  for  the  second  of  these  offences,  and  it  is 
hardly  probable  that  he  did  so  for  the  former.  Burning  (i.  e. 
probably  burning  alive,  though  many  think  the  offender  was  stoned 
and  then  the  corpse  was  burnt)  is  the  penalty  prescribed  in  the 
Law  of  Holiness  for  the  unchastity  of  a  priest's  daughter  (Lev. 
xxi.  9),  and  that  pronounced  on  Tamar  by  Judah  (Gen.  xxxviii. 
24)  for  the  same  offence.  But  in  these  cases  '  the  woman  pays,' 
though  in  Lev.  xx.  14  all  the  guilty  parties  are  burnt  for 
a  particular  type  of  incest;  and  while  the  death  penalty  is  inflicted 
for  adultery  on  both  the  guilty  parties  (Deut.  xxii.  22,  Lev.  xx. 
10),  it  was  not  by  burning  but  by  stoning  (Ezek.  xvi.  38,  40,  xxiii. 
45?  47>  John  viii.  5;,  and,  as  we  learn  from  the  passages  in 
Ezekiel,  by  thrusting  them  through  with  swords  to  dispatch  them. 
In  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  burning  is  the  penalty  for  a  peculiarly 
flagrant  form  of  incest  (§  157),  but  adulterers  are  strangled  and 
cast  into  the  water  (§  129).  The  Jews  would  have  no  power  of 
inflicting  death,  but  it  is  unlikely  that  they  would  take  the  case 
before  the  Babylonian  courts,  or  that  so  jjfiastly  a  sentence  would 
be  pronounced.  The  offence  for  which  Nebuchadnezzar  roasted 
them  must  have  been  treason  or  possibly  blasphemy  against  the 
gods  of  Babylon  ;  but  Yahwch  punished  them  for  the  offences 
mentioned  by  delivering  them  into  his  hand  (21). 


64  JEREMIAH  29.  24.     BBS 

they  have  wrought  folly  in  Israel,  and  have  committed 
adultery  with  their  neighbours'  wives,  and  have  spoken 
words  in  my  name  falsely,  which  I  commanded  them  not; 
and  I  am  he  that  knoweth,  and  am  witness,  saith  the 
Lord. 
24      [BS]  And  ^  concerning  Shemaiah  the  Nehelamite  thou 

*  Or,  tmto 

wrought  folly  in  Israel.  This  expression  is  commonly 
(though  not  exclusively  :  of.  Joshua  vii.  15)  applied  to  breaches  of 
chastity  (Gen.  xxxiv.  7,  Deut.  xxii.  21,  Judges  xx.  6,  2  Sam.  xiii. 
12).  Accordingly  it  seems  here  to  have  reference  to  the  former 
of  the  two  offences  to  be  enumerated.  The  term  *  folly '  is  not  an 
adequate  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  term;  both  *  wisdom'  and 
'folly'  had  for  the  Hebrews  a  moral  rather  than  an  intellectual 
connotation  ;  and  the  term  used  here,  as  Driver  says,  *  denotes 
a  state  of  mind,  or  an  action,  marked  by  utter  disregard  of  moral 
or  spiritual  feeling.' 

24-32.  We  now  learn  of  an  attempt  by  Shemaiah,  one  of  the 
exiles,  to  have  Jeremiah  punished  for  his  letter.  The  section  is 
^  far  from  clear,  and  the  LXX  diverges  considerably  from  the 
Hebrew.  It  is  true  that  the  LXX  gives  quite  a  perverted 
impression  of  the  matter,  since  it  turns  the  former  part  of 
Shemaiah's  letter  to  Zephaniah  (26)  into  an  address  to  him  by 
Jeremiah,  and  the  rest  (27,  28)  into  a  remonstrance  with  both  of 
them  by  Jeremiah  for  their  abuse  of  him  ;  and  crowns  the  confusion 
by  saying,  in  harmony  with  the  Hebrew  text,  that  Zephaniah  read 
the  letter  (which  has  not  been  previously  mentioned)  to  Jeremiah  ! 
Naturally  this  incoherent  jumble  cannot  come  into  competition 
with  the  Hebrew  text.  But  it  would  be  too  hasty  to  infer  that  it 
is  without  value  for  the  restoration  of  the  original.  The  present 
Hebrew  text  also  is  in  some  confusion.  Jeremiah  is  told  to 
deliver  the  following  message  from  God  to  Shemaiah.  The 
message,  however,  does  not  follow  because  the  author  goes  on  to 
assign  the  reason  for  it,  namely,  that  Shemaiah  has  sent  letters  to 
Jerusalem,  and  then  quotes  his  letter  to  Zephaniah  at  length,  and 
concludes  with  the  statement  that  Zephaniah  read  the  letter  to 
Jeremiah.  Lastly  we  have  the  statement  that  then  the  word  of 
Yahweh  came  to  Jeremiah,  bidding  him  send  a  message  about 
Shemaiah,  not  to  Shemaiah  himself,  but  to  the  exiles.  As  com- 
pared with  the  LXX  the  main  points  are  quite  clear  in  the  Hebrew, 
and  no  one  could  be  seriously  misled  as  to  the  course  of  events. 
Nor  is  it  incredible  that  Baruch  was  himself  responsible  for  the 
inconsequent  form  of  the  passage.     It  would  be  better  to  accept 


JEREMIAH  29.  25, 26.     BS  65 

shalt  speak,  saying,  Thus  speaketh  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  25 
God  of  Israel,  saying,  Because  thou  hast  sent  letters  in  thine 
own  name  unto  all  the  people  that  are  at  Jerusalem,  and 
to  Zephaniah  the  son  of  Maaseiah  the  priest,  and  to  all 
the  priests,  saying,  The  Lord  hath  made  thee  priest  in  26 
the  stead  of  Jehoiada  the  priest,  that  ye  should  be  officers 

a  reconstruction  of  the  text  which  would  give  us  a  narrative  pure 
and  simple.  This  involves  striking  out  the  command  to  Jeremiah 
that  he  should  speak  thus  to  Shemaiah.  It  would  then  be  best  to 
treat  'Concerning  Shemaiah  the  Nehelamite'  as  the  title  of  the 
paragraph,  and  begin  the  narrative  'This  man  sent  letters  in  his 
own  name.'  Or  we  could  read  'Shemaiah  the  Nehelamite  sent 
letters  in  his  own  name.' 

Duhm,  to  whom  the  chief  credit  for  this  reconstruction  belongs, 
thinks  that  Baruch  said  nothing  as  to  the  outcome  of  the  letter, 
and  that  his  narrative  closed  with  the  statement  that  Zephaniah 
read  it  to  the  prophet,  30-32  being  an  addition,  imitative  in 
character  and  inappropriate  in  content.  But  while  the  passage 
may  have  been  expanded,  it  probably  contains  a  genuine  kernel. 
The  story  would,  in  fact,  have  closed  very  abruptly  with  29. 

24.  Shemaiah.  the   Nehelajnite.    Nothing  is  known  of  him 
bej'ond  what  we  learn  from  this  passage.     It  is  uncertain  whether  ^ 
*  the    Nehelamite '    designates   him  as   member  of  a   particular 
family,  or  as  belonging  to  a  particular  place,  which  is  otherwise 
unknown  to  us. 

25.  Shemaiah  writes  in  his  own  name,  not  in  the  name  of 
Yahweh.  It  is  questionable  whether  the  plural '  letters '  is  correct. 
The  Syriac  reads  the  singular,  and  only  one  letter  is  otherwise 
mentioned.  The  plural  is  used  for  a  single  letter,  2  Kings  xix.  14, 
XX.  12.  The  LXX  omits  the  word  altogether.  We  should  omit, 
with  the  LXX,  'unto  all  the  people  that  are  at  Jerusalem,  and,' 
with  'and  to  all  the  priests,'  since  Zephaniah  is  addressed  in  the 
singular ;  and  the  duty,  which  Shemaiah  remonstrates  with  him 
for  disregarding,  is  his  own  duty,  not  that  of  the  priests  in 
general. 

Zephaniah  :  see  note  on  xxi.  i.  He  is  said  in  lii.  24,  2  Kings 
XXV.  18  to  have  been  '  the  second  priest,'  i.  e.  second  to  Seraiah 
the  chief  priest.  He  was  twice  sent  by  Zedekiah  to  Jeremiah  to  * 
ask  for  an  oracle  :  xxi.  r,  xxxvii.  3.  He  was  among  those 
executed  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  Riblah  after  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem  (lii.  24-27,  2  Kings  xxv.  18-21). 

26.  in  the  stead  of  Jehoiada  the  priest.     In  themselves  the 
words   rather   favour  the  view   that  Jehoiada   was  Zcphaniah's     i 
immediate  predecessor.     If  so,  we  know  nothing  further  of  him, 

II  F 


66  JEREMIAH  29.  27.     BS 

in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  for  every  man  that  is  mad,  and 

maketh  himself  a  prophet,  that  thou  shouldest  put  him 

27  in  the  stocks  and  in  « shackles.    Now  therefore,  why  hast 

"  fOr,  i/ie  collar 

It  is,  however,  more  probable  that  the  reference  is  to  the  famous 
priest  Jehoiada,  who  deposed  Athaliah  and  set  Joash  on  the 
throne.  We  read  that  he  '  appointed  officers  over  the  house  of 
Yahweh '  (2  Kings  xi.  18).  Their  function  would  be  to  preserve 
order,  and  prevent  the  services  from  being  disturbed  by  noisy 
people  who  took  themselves  to  be  prophets.  Of  course  discrimi- 
nation had  to  be  practised,  since  the  conduct  of  a  prophet  whom 
Yahweh  had  truly  sent  might  be  externally  indistinguishable  from 
that  of  a  deluded  enthusiast.  Pashhur,  Zephaniah's  predecessor, 
had  exercised  his  disciplinary  function  in  Jeremiah's  case,  having 
formed  the  same  estimate  of  him  as  Shemaiah  did  now. 

officers.  The  plural  is  difficult :  some  think  it  refers  to 
Jehoiada  and  Zephaniah  ;  others,  including  Graf,  interpret 
'  Yahweh  hath  made  thee  priest,  that  officers  may  be  in  the  house 
of  Yahweh,'  i.  e.  Zephaniah's  position  as  priest  carries  with  it 
the  duty  of  appointing  Temple  officers.  But  we  should  simply 
substitute  the  singular  with  LXX,  Syriac,  Targum,  and  Vulgate, 
'  that  thou  shouldest  be  an  officer.*  On  the  duties  of  the  overseer 
cf.  note  on  xx.  i.  It  would  be  precarious  to  assume  that  the 
duty  here  mentioned  was  all  that  Zephaniah  had  to  perform,  and 
infer  that  the  number  of  those  who  had  to  be  dealt  with  was  large. 

every  man  .  .  .  propliet.  Probably  we  are  not  to  distinguish 
two  classes  here,  those  who  are  mad,  and  those  who  pose  as 
prophets ;  the  two  clauses  refer  to  the  same  person,  and  mean 
anyone  whose  madness  takes  the  form  of  making  himself  out  to  be 
a  prophet.  The  early  prophets  had  been  distinguished  by  their 
eccentricities,  their  raving  enthusiasm  ;  they  sometimes  impressed 
people  with  the  idea  that  they  were  mad  (2  Kings  ix.  11).  When 
Saul  was  under  the  influence  of  the  'evil  spirit  from  God,'  i.e. 
some  form  of  mental  disorder,  '  he  prophesied '  (R.V.  margin 
*  raved  ')  *  in  the  midst  of  the  house  '  (i  Sam,  xviii.  10).  Cf.  i  Sam. 
X.  10-13,  ^^^'  20-24.  The  great  prophets  from  the  eighth  century 
onwards  seem  to  have  risen  largely,  if  not  completely,  above  these 
ecstatic  states  and  eccentric  habits,  but  probably  the  lower  type 
of  prophet  still  exhibited  the  old  characteristics  in  no  slight  degree. 
If  two  classes  are  mentioned  here,  we  must  remember  that  the 
madman  is  often  regarded  by  primitive  peoples  as  divinely  in- 
spired. 

in  the  stocks  and  in  shackles.  For  '  the  stocks  '  see  note  on 
XX.  2.     The  word  rendered  '  shackles '  occurs  here  only,  and  its 


JEREMIAH  29.  28-32.     BS  67 

thou  not  rebuked  Jeremiah  of  Anathoth,  which  maketh 
himself  a  prophet  to  you,  forasmuch  as  he  hath  sent  unto  28 
us  in  Babylon,  saying,   The  captivity  is  long :    build  ye 
houses,  and  dwell  in  them  ;  and  plant  gardens,  and  eat 
the  fruit  of  them  ?    And  Zephaniah  the  priest  read  this  29 
letter  in  the  ears  of  Jeremiah  the  prophet.     Then  came  30 
the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  Jeremiah,  saying.  Send  to  all  31 
them  of  the  captivity,  saying.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  con- 
cerning Shemaiah  the  Nehelamite  :  Because  that  Shema- 
iah  hath  prophesied  unto  you,  and  I  sent  him  not,  and 
he  hath  caused  you  to  trust  in  a  lie ;  therefore  thus  saith  32 

meaning  is  disputed.  It  is  now  generally  taken,  on  the  analogy 
of  an  Arabic  word,  to  be  an  iron  band  fastened  round  the  neck,  so 
that  the  rendering  in  the  margin,  *  collar,'  fairly  represents  the 
Hebrew. 

28.  As  sufficient  proof  of  Jeremiah's  '■  mad  '  condition,  Shemaiah 
thinks  it  enough  to  quote  his  advice  to  the  exiles  to  settle  down  in 
their  new  home,  since  the  time  was  long  ere  the  captivity  should 
be  ended.  The  sanity  of  the  prophet  was  never  more  apparent 
than  when  he  administered  this  cold  douche  of  common  sense  to 
their  fevered  enthusiasm. 

29.  Zephaniah  does  not  follow  the  example  set  by  his  predeces- 
sor (xx.  1-3),  but  communicates  Shemaiah's  letter  to  the  prophet, 
which  we  may  fairly  take  as  a  sign  of  sympathy  with  his  stand- 
point. 

31.  It  is  objected  to  the  narrative  that  it  betrays  no  conscious- 
ness of  any  difficulty  in  sending  the  prophecy  to  Babylon. 
Probably  the  opportunities  of  communication  were  more  numerous 
than  we  might  anticipate.  That  when  it  reached  Babylon  it  would 
circulate  among  the  exiles  may  be  inferred  from  what  had 
happened  to  the  previous  letter. 

prophesied.  There  is  no  previous  indication  in  the  story  that 
Shemaiah  was  one  of  the  prophets,  and  there  is  thus  a  suspicious 
parallel  with  the  case  of  Pashhur  (xx.  6).  But  there  was  no 
occasion  for  an  earlier  reference,  and  there  is  an  antecedent 
probability  that  this  antagonist  of  Jeremiah  should,  like  Hananiah, 
belong  to  the  ranks  of  the  prophets. 

32.  It  is  strange  that  Jeremiah  should  include  as  an  element  in 
Shemaiah's  punishment  that  he  should  not  behold  the  good  that 
Yahweh  would  do  to  His  people.  This  seems  to  refer  to  the 
return   from   exile,   but   since  Jeremiah   did  not  expect  this  for 

F  2 


68  JEREMIAH  29.  32— 30.  i.     BSS 

the  Lord,  Behold,  I  will  punish  Shemaiah  the  Nehela- 
mite,  and  his  seed ;  he  shall  not  have  a  man  to  dwell 
among  this  people,  neither  shall  he  behold  the  good  that 
I  will  do  unto  my  people,  saith  the  Lord  :  because  he 
hath  spoken  rebellion  against  the  Lord. 

[s]  The  word  that  came  to  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord, 

seventy  years,  it  would  have  been  remarkable  if  Shemaiah  had 
been  alive  at  the  time.  The  LXX  reads  '  there  shall  not  be  a  man 
of  them  in  the  midst  of  you  to  see  the  good,'  which  is  to  be  preferred 
since  it  gives  an  acceptable  sense,  that  none  of  Shemaiah- s  descen- 
dants should  see  the  restoration  accomplished.  The  LXX  omits  the 
last  clause,  see  xxviii.  16. 

XXX,  xxxi.  The  Glorious  Future  of  Israel  and  Judah. 

These  chapters  break  the  series  of  biographical  sections.  Ori- 
ginally we  may  suppose  that  they  closed  the  collection  of  Jeremiah's 
prophecies  which,  before  they  were  united  with  Baruch's  memoirs, 
consisted  of  i-xxv,  xlvi-li,  xxx-xxxi.  When  the  fusion  of  the 
prophecies  with  the  memoirs  took  place,  xxx,  xxxi  was  presum- 
ably placed  in  its  present  position  because  xxix,  with  its  references 
to  the  restoration  (xxix.  10  ff.,  32),  seemed  to  forma  suitable  intro- 
duction to  it. 

This  section  has  for  a  long  time  challenged  the  suspicious 
scrutiny  of  critics.  Movers,  impressed  by  the  striking  similarities 
between  these  chapters  and  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah,  put  forward 
the  view  that  the  chapters  had  been  worked  over  by  the  Second 
Isaiah.  This  view  was  adopted  by  de  Wette  and  Hitzig,  but  the 
three  scholars  differed  widely  in  detail.  In  reply  Graf  admitted 
the  similarity  with  Isa.  xl-lxvi,  but  urged  that  this  was  accounted 
for  by  similarity  of  content,  and  that  the  striking  coincidences  in 
expression  were  to  be  explained  as  due  to  imitation  of  Jeremiah 
on  the  part  of  the  Second  Isaiah.  He  met  Hitzig's  accusation  that 
the  chapters  were  characterized  by  lack  of  connexion,  with  the 
counter-charge  that  this  could  properly  be  brought  only  against 
the  prophecy  as  Hitzig  had  reconstructed  it,  and  with  the  demon- 
stration that  the  prophecy,  as  we  have  it,  is  a  well-connected 
whole.  The  force  of  Grafs  plea  for  the  authenticity,  combined 
with  the  divergence  between  those  who  impugned  it  and  the 
unsatisfactoriness  of  their  reconstructions, had  the  effect  of  rehabili- 
tating the  Jeremianic  authorship  in  the  eyes  of  critics,  till  Stade 
and  Smend  rejected  it  altogether.  The  grounds  for  this  conclusion 
were  not  communicated  by  Stade  in   the  footnote  in  which  he 


JEREMIAH  30.  :.     S  69 

saying,  Thus  speaketh  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  saying,  2 

stated  it  {Gcschichte Israels,  i.  643),  but  Smend  examined  the  question 
with  some  fullness  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Alitcstamentliche  Rdi- 
gionsgcschichtc.  He  argued  that  these  chapters  did  not  even  spring 
out  of  the  exile,  but  presupposed  the  return  which  is  not  men- 
tioned. Judah  is  in  a  miserable  condition,  the  prophet  looks 
forward  to  a  speedy  deliverance  which  is  to  come  through  the  res- 
toration of  Ephraim  and  its  reunion  with  Judah.  It  was  true  that 
Jeremiah  had  predicted  the  restoration  of  Ephraim  (iii),  but  he  had 
combined  the  restoration  of  Ephraim  with  the  rejection  of  Judah, 
while  the  author  of  xxx,  xxxi  combined  the  expected  return  of 
Ephraim  with  the  already  accomplished  return  of  Judah.  Further, 
whereas  Jeremiah  expected  the  exile  to  last  a  long  while,  the 
author  of  xxx,  xxxi  anticipated  a  speedy  restoration.  Since  the  pro- 
phecy was  written  in  Palestine  (xxxi.  8,  21),  but  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  (xxx.  18,  xxxi.  40"^,  it  can  have  been  written  by 
Jeremiah,  if  he  was  its  author,  only  in  the  few  months  which 
elapsed  between  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  his  compulsory  journey 
to  Egypt.  But  a  longer  time  seems  to  have  elapsed,  Judah's 
wound  is  seen  to  be  incurable,  the  nations  have  abandoned  her. 
The  study  of  Smend's  discussion  convinced  the  present  writer, 
before  Giesebrecht's  commentary  came  into  his  hands,  that  the 
insertion  of  a  considerable  non-Jeremianic  element  had  to  be 
admitted,  but  that  there  was  no  justification  for  the  relegation  of 
the  whole  to  the  post-exilic  period,  and  in  particular  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  prophecy  of  the  New  Covenant. 

Smend's  arguments  were  submitted  to  a  careful  examination  by 
Giesebrecht  in  the  first  edition  of  his  commentary.  He  drew  a 
distinction  between  the  two  chapters.  He  gave  up  the  Jeremianic 
origin  of  xxx  entirely,  having  been  convinced  by  Smend's  argu- 
ments that  18-21  constituted  no  exception,  a  point  on  which  he 
had  previously  hesitated.  But  in  xxxi  he  recognized  the  authen- 
ticity of  2-6,  15-20,  27-34,  The  two  former,  which  deal  with  the 
restoration  of  Ephraim,  he  assigned  to  Jeremiah's  earliest  period. 
Duhm  largely  agreed  with  Giesebrecht  as  to  these  passages, 
accepting  xxxi.  2-6,  15-22*.  But  he  also  retained  xxx.  12-15  for 
Jeremiah.  On  the  other  hand  he  followed  Smend  in  rejecting, 
though  only  after  long  hesitation  and  with  much  reluctance, 
Jeremiah's  authorship  of  the  New  Covenant  passage.  Erbt 
accepted  xxxi.  2-6,  15-17,  18-20.  Cornill  considered  that  the 
Jeremianic  elements  in  the  chapters  were  xxxi.  2-5,  9^  15-22'', 
which  belonged  to  the  first  period  of  the  prophet's  work,  and 
xxxi.  31-34,  the  prophecy  on  the  New  Covenant  spoken  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Rothstein,on  the  contrary,  is  prepared 
to  recognize  a  good  part  of  the  poetical  passages  in  both  chapters 
as  Jeremianic. 


70  JEREMIAH  30.  2.     S 

Write  thee  all  the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  thee  in 


This  survey  will  have  shown  that  there  is  considerable  consen- 
sus of  opinion  among  recent  writers  that  little  if  any  Jeremianic 
matter  is  to  be  found  in  xxx,  but  that  the  prophecy  of  Ephraim's 
restoration  in  xxxi  is  largely  authentic.  On  the  other  hand  there 
is  still  a  sharp  divergence  of  opinion  on  the  most  important  of  all 
the  problems  raised  in  connexion  with  the  criticism  of  the  book,  the 
authorship  of  the  great  oracle  on  the  New  Covenant,  xxxi.  31-34. 
The  detailed  discussion  can  most  profitably  be  reserved  for  the 
notes.  Here  a  few  general  observations  on  the  two  chapters  may 
be  offered.  In  view  of  the  unity  which  pervades  these  chapters 
we  should  regard  them  as  a  single  well-planned  composition, 
which  must  belong  in  its  present  form  to  the  post-exilic  period. 
This  date  is  established  by  the  situation  presupposed  in  it,  and  by 
its  relations  to  II  Isaiah.  .  Had  Jer.  xxx,  xxxi  been  used  by  the 
Second  Isaiah,  as  Graf  maintained,  we  should  have  expected  him 
to  draw  on  it  throughout,  but  the  points  of  contact  are  confined  to 
certain  portions.  Accordingly  we  may  infer  that  at  least  the 
sections  which  present  close  parallels  with  II  Isaiah,  and  therefore 
the  composition  as  a  whole,  is  post-exilic.  At  the  same  time  the 
probabilities  that  a  genuine  Jeremianic  nucleus  is  present  are  con- 
siderable. The  parallelism  with  Jer.  iii  is  striking,  and  in  particular 
the  invitation  to  Ephraim  to  return.  The  compiler,  however,  felt 
that  the  prominence  of  Northern  Israel  threw  Judah  into  the 
background,  and  this  largely  accounts  for  the  additions  which  he 
made.  On  the  prophecy  of  the  New  Covenant  the  reader  must 
refer  to  the  special  discussion  of  the  passage ;  here  the  present 
writer  must  simply  register  his  unshaken  conviction  that  though 
in  its  present  form  we  may  owe  it  to  Baruch,  the  prophecy  itself 
comes  from  Jeremiah  and  from  no  other,  and  is  the  worthy  crown 
of  his  teaching,  as  he  has  sought  to  show  in  the  Introduction  to 
this  work  (vol.  i,  pp.  43-48). 

The  date  at  which  xxx,  xxxi  was  compiled  is  a  matter  for  con- 
jecture. Dulim  believes  that  it  contains  very  late  elements.  A  far 
more  moderate  position  is  taken  by  Schmidt,  who  says  that  it  falls 
between  the  prophecies  collected  in  Isa.  xl-lv,  and  those  found  in 
Isa.  Ivi-Lxvi.  He  thinks  that  it  was  written  on  the  eve  of  Xerxes' 
expedition  against  Greece.  '  The  gathering  of  tremendous  armies 
from  all  lands  for  a  decisive  combat  may  well  have  struck  terror 
into  the  hearts  of  Judaeans'   {Enc.  Bib.  2391). 

xxx.  1-3.  Yahweh  bade  Jeremiah  write  all  He  had  spoken  to 
him  in  a  book,  in  view  of  the  restoration  of  Israel  and  Judah. 

4-1 1.  Why  is  this  consternation?  Wh}'  do  men  display  such 
anguish  ?  It  is  the  Great  Da^'.  a  day  of  trouble  for  Jacob,  which  shall 
issue  in  his  deliverance.     His  yoke  shall  be  broken,  no  more  shall 


JEREMIAH  30.  3.     S  71 

a  book.     For,  lo,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  3 

he  serve  strangers,  but  Yahweh  and  David  their  king.  Fear  not, 
Jacob,  the  servant  of  Yahweh,  for  thou  shalt  be  restored  and  rest 
in  tliy  land.  I  will  utterly  destroy  the  nations  of  thy  dispersion, 
but  thee  I  will  only  chastise. 

12-17.  Zion's  hurt  is  incurable,  she  is  forsaken  by  her  lovers; 
Yahweh  has  inflicted  her  wound  to  punish  her  for  her  sins.  All 
her  enemies  shall  suffer  retribution  for  the  injuries  they  have  done 
to  her  ;  but  she  shall  be  healed,  outcast  though  she  has  been  called. 

i8-22.  Jerusalem  shall  be  rebuilt,  it  will  be  filled  with  thanks- 
giving and  merriment ;  its  inhabitants  will  be  multiplied,  honoured, 
and  protected.  They  shall  be  governed  by  a  native  ruler,  whom 
I  will  cause  to  draw  near  to  Me  ;  they  shall  be  My  people,  and 
I  will  be  their  God. 

23,  24.  Behold  the  storm  of  Yahweh's  anger  is  about  to  burst 
on  the  wicked,  nor  will  it  cease  till  His  purpose  is  fulfilled.  The 
event  will  make  plain  the  meaning  of  the  threat. 

xxxi.  1-6.  Then  I  will  be  a  God  to  all  the  families  of  Israel, 
and  they  shall  be  My  people.  Those  who  survived  the  sword 
have  found  favour  in  exile  ;  I  will  go  to  restore  Israel.  From  afar 
Yahweh  assures  Israel  of  His  undying  love.  I  will  re.-establish 
thee,  O  virgin  of  Israel ;  thou  shalt  join  in  the  merry  dance,  and 
plant  vineyards  on  the  slopes  of  Samaria.  They  will  go  up  from 
Ephraim  to  Yahweh  in  Zion. 

7-14.  Rejoice  for  the  salvation  of  Israel ;  a  great  company  from 
the  north  country  and  the  ends  of  the  earth  is  led  back  by  Me, 
who  am  once  more  Israel's  father  and  count  Ephraim  as  My  first- 
born. Let  the  nations  hear  of  Israel's  restoration.  They  shall 
rejoice  in  Zion  and  feast  on  Yahweh's  bounty  ;  all  their  desire  shall 
be  satisfied.  Mourning  shall  be  turned  into  merriment,  and  all 
shall  be  abundantly  content. 

15-22.  The  voice  of  Rachel  is  heard  lamenting  for  the  children 
she  has  lost.  Cease  thy  tears  :  thy  children  shall  come  back  to 
thee.  Ephraim  repents  his  former  waywardness,  and  pleads  with 
Yahweh  to  restore  him.  I  yearn  over  him,  even  when  I  rebuke 
him  ;  I  will  have  mercy  upon  him.  Return,  Israel,  to  thy  cities. 
Why  go  hither  and  thither?  Yahweh  has  created  a  new  thing  : 
a  woman  will  be  turned  into  a  man. 

23-26.  Again  in  Judah  will  Yahweh's  blessing  be  invoked  on 
the  Temple  ;  its  inhabitants  shall  be  husbandmen  and  shepherds. 
He  has  satiated  the  weary.  I  woke  to  reality  from  my  slumber, 
and  realized  that  it  was  all  a  pleasant  dream. 

27-30.  I  will  give  Israel  and  Judah  the  seed  of  man  and  beast, 
and  as  I  have  cast  them  down,  so  I  will  build  them  up.  No  longer 
shall  the  children  complain  that  they  arc  punished  for  their  fathers' 
sins,  but  each  shall  suffer  for  his  own. 


72  JEREMIAH  30.  4.     S 

I  will  ^'^  turn  again  the  captivity  of  my  people  Israel  and 
Judah,  saith  the  Lord  :  and  I  will  cause  them  to  return 
to  the  land  that  I  gave  to  their  fathers,  and  they  shall 
possess  it. 
^      And  these  are  the  words  that  the  Lord  spake  concern- 

*  Or,  return  to 

31-34.  I  will  make  a  New  Covenant  with  Israel  and  Judah,  not 
like  that  which  I  made  when  I  brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  a  cove- 
nant which  they  broke  ;  but  I  will  write  My  law  in  their  hearts, 
I  will  be  their  God  and  they  shall  be  My  people.  And  none  shall 
teach  another  the  knowledge  of  Yahweh,  for  all  shall  know  Me, 
and  I  will  forgive  and  forget  their  sin. 

35-37,  If  the  laws  which  control  the  shining  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  are  abolished,  Israel  also  shall  cease  to  be  a  nation  before 
Me.  If  heaven  can  be  measured  and  the  foundations  of  the  earth 
be  searched  out,  I  will  cast  off  Israel  for  its  sin, 

38-40.  Jerusalem  shalt  be  rebuilt  larger  than  before,  and  never 
again  be  destroyed, 

XXX.  2.  all  the  words.  If  this  is  taken  strictly  it  would 
imply  a  direction  to  Jeremiah  to  compile  a  complete  collection  of 
his  prophecies,  and  the  revelation  which  as  yet  he  had  not  given 
to  the  world.  The  question  would  then  arise  in  what  relation  this 
stood  to  the  collection  of  prophecies  made  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  (xxxvi.  2).  The  latter  was  not  necessarily  complete  ; 
it  contained  prophecies  against  Jerusalem  (so  LXX)  and  Judah 
and  the  nations,  and  these  were  prophecies  of  denunciation  and 
judgement.  But  if  in  the  present  passage  a  complete  collection  is 
intended  it  would  naturally  include  the  collection  already  made, 
and  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  that  roll  would  be  perplexing. 
But  we  should  probably  not  press  the  phrase.  From  3  we  learn 
that  the  prophecies  are  to  be  collected  in  view  of  the  return  of 
Israel  and  Judah  to  Palestine,  and  from  4  that  they  are  to  be 
identified  with  what  follows.  We  might  then  take  'all  the  words ' 
to  mean  all  contained  in  this  section.  But  perhaps  the  meaning 
is  that  the  prophecies  previously  published  were  of  a  threatening 
character  and  gave  only  a  one-sided  representation  of  his  teaching : 
*  all  the  words  '  have  not  yet  been  written  ;  only  when  the  pro- 
mises of  the  blessed  future  have  been  added  will  the  collection 
be  complete.  It  need  hardly  be  added  that  1-4  will  not  be  earlier 
than  the  date  at  which  xxx-xxxi  was  compiled. 

3.  turn  again  the  captivity  :  see  note  on  xxix.  14.  The  phrase 
occurs  rather  frequently  in  xxx-xxxiii. 

4.  The  form  of  expression  may  be  intended  to  suggest  a  con- 


JEREMIAH  30.  5-7.     S  73 

ing  Israel  and  concerning  Judah.     For  thus  sailh   the  5 
Lord  :   We  have  heard  a  voice  of  trembhng,  ^  of  fear, 
and  not  of  peace.     Ask  ye  now,  and  see  whether  a  man  6 
doth  travail  with  child :   wherefore  do  I  see  every  man 
with  his  hands  on  his  loins,  as  a  woman  in  travail,  and 
all  faces  are  turned  into  paleness  ?    Alas  !  for  that  day  is  7 
great,  so  that  none  is  like  it  :    it  is  even  the  time  of 

*  fOr,  there  is  fear,  and  no  peace 

trast  with  the  collection  of  words  spoken  concerning  the  foreign 
nations. 

5.  thus  saith  the  LOBD.  If  these  words  are  to  be  retained, 
we  should  take  the  rest  of  the  verse  as  a  quotation  by  Yahweh  of 
the  people's  words,  inserting  '  Ye  say '  in  the  translation  (so 
Driver),  since  it  is  inappropriate  to  represent  Yahweh  as  saying 
'  We  have  heard.'  But  the  words  are  apparently  a  thoughtless, 
and  rather  too  characteristic,  addition  by  some  scribe.  It  is  the 
people  who  are  speaking.  The  Day  of  Yahweh  has  come  ;  men 
cry  out  in  the  paiiic  which  has  overtaken  them. 

6.  The  posture  and  the  paleness  would  in  a  woman  suggest  the 
throes  of  childbirth  ;  if  men  exhibit  the  same  symptoms  it  is  a  sign 
of  a  bitter,  if  a  different,  anguish.  Cf.  Isa.  xiii.  8,  Nah.  ii.  10,  Joel 
ii.  6.  The  superfluous  clause  'as  a  woman  in  travail'  is  best 
omitted,  with  the  LXX. 

*7.  that  day :  i.  e.  the  Day  of  Yahweh.  This  was  originally,  as 
we  may  infer  from  Amos  v.  18,  an  element  in  the  popular  theology 
of  Israel,  expressing  the  expectation  of  a  great  intervention  on  the 
part  of  Yahweh,  when  He  would  crush  all  her  foes  and  place  her 
in  a  position  of  unchallenged  supremacy,  Amos  warned  the 
people  that  it  would  be  a  day  of  disaster  and  judgement,  not  of 
triumph,  and  his  transformation  of  the  idea  was  accepted  by  his 
true  successors,  many  of  whom  give  lurid  descriptions  of  it,  the 
most  elaborate  being  that  of  Zephaniah.  The  Dies  Irae  is  its 
counterpart  in  mediaeval  Christianity.  In  the  later  Hebrew  pro- 
phec}',  however,  the  idea  of  the  Day  as  issuing  in  Israel's  salva- 
tion came  back,  conformably  to  the  rule  that  prophecy  before  the 
destruction  of  the  State  was  predominantly  prophecy' of  judgement, 
after  it  prophecy  of  restoration.  But  salvation  is  reached  through 
tribulation,  which  in  the  later  Jewish  theology  was  referred  to  as 
*  the  woes  of  the  Messiah.'  1  he  most  familiar  example  is  to  be 
found  in  the  eschatological  discourse  in  the  Gobpels  (see  Mark  xiii. 
7,  8,  17-20,  24  . 

so  that  no&e  is  like  it.    This  is  probably  the  meaning  ;  it 


74  JEREMIAH  30.  S-io.     S 

8  Jacob's  trouble ;  but  he  shall  be  saved  out  of  it.  And  it 
shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
that  I  will  break  his  yoke  from  off  thy  neck,  and  will 
burst  thy  bands  ;  and  strangers  shall  no  more  serve  them- 

9  selves  of  him  :  but  they  shall  serve  the  Lord  their  God, 
and  David  their  king,  whom  I  will  raise  up  unto  them. 

10  Therefore  fear  thou  not,  O  Jacob  my  servant,  saith  the 

involves  a  slight  change  in  the  present  pointing,  which  gives  the 
sense  '  whence  is  any  like  it  ? '     See  note  on  x.  6. 

Jacob's  trouble.     Jacob   is  a  favourite  designation    of  the 
Israelitish  people  in  II  Isaiah,  and  some  of  the  later  writers. 

8.  The  former  part  of  the  verse  is  largely  taken  from  Isa.  x.  27, 
with  an  addition  from  Jer.  ii.  20.  The  harsh  change  from  the  third 
to  the  second  person  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  passage  is 
a  quotation,  but  whether  the  poet  retained  the  second  person  of  the 
quotation,  or  whether  he  conformed  it  to  the  context  and  wrote 
the  third  person  (so  LXX,  except  that  it  substitutes  the  plural  for 
the  singular),  and  our  present  Hebrew  text  originated  from  assimi- 
lation to  Isa.  X.  27  is  uncertain.  The  present  writer  prefers  the 
former  view,  since  he  considers  it  easier  to  believe  that  the  LXX 
corrected  the  awkward  Hebrew  than  that  a  scribe  would  create 
the  incongruity  under  the  influence  of  Isa.  x.  27  ;  all  the  more  that 
the  LXX  itself  is  not  quite  satisfactory  in  that  it  reads  the  plural. 
The  yoke  is  the  heathen  dominion.  But  while  it  is  political 
ser\atude  only,  and  not  idolatry  as  well,  which  is  intended,  the 
combination  Yahweh  and  David  in  the  next  verse  suggests 
that  behind  the  heathen  empires  stood  the  supernatural  rulers, 
'the  host  of  the  high  ones  on  high'  of  Isa.  xxiv.  21,  the  'gods' 
of  Ps.  Iviii.  I  (see  margin),  Ixxxii.  i,  6,  the  '  princes  '  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel.  These  are  ultimately  responsible  for  Israel's  sufferings, 
since  they  are  the  supernatural  powers,  which  really  control  the 
policy  of  the  great  empires. 

serve  themselves  of  Mm  :  i.  e.  employ  him  as  their  slave ; 
see  notes  on  xxv.  ii,  14. 

9.  serve :  here  combines  the  religious  with  the  political  sense. 
David  is  the  name  for  the  ideal  ruler  of  the  Davidic  line  ;  cf.  Hos. 
iii.  5,  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23,  24,  xxxvii,  24,  25.  It  is  perhaps  hardly 
necessary  to  point  out  that  the  final  clause  does  not  mean  that  the 
long-deceased  king  David  will  be  raised  from  the  dead  to  reign 
over  Israel ;  the  same  verb  is  used  in  xxiii.  5,  '  I  will  raise  unto 
David  a  righteous  shoot'  (see  note). 

10.  11.  The  two  verses  recur  with  some  variation  in  xlvi.  27, 
28.     The  LXX  inserts  them  there,  but  omits  them  here.    It  must 


JEREMIAH  30.  11,12.     S  75 

Lord;  neither  be  dismayed,  O  Israel:  for,  lo,  I  will  save 
thee  from  afar,  and  thy  seed  from  the  land  of  their  cap 
tivity ;  and  Jacob  shall  return,  and  shall  be  quiet  and  at 
ease,  and  none  shall  make  him  afraid.  For  I  am  with  i] 
thee,  saith  the  Lord,  to  save  thee  :  for  I  will  make  a  full 
end  of  all  the  nations  whither  I  have  scattered  thee,  but 
I  will  not  make  a  full  end  of  thee  ;  but  I  will  correct  thee 
with  judgement,  and  will  in  no  wise  ^  leave  thee  un- 
punished. 

For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Thy  hurt  is  incurable,  and  1: 
*  Or,  hold  thee  guiltless 


be  remembered,  however,  that  the  prophecies  on  the  foreign 
nations  precede  the  present  chapters  in  the  LXX,  so  that  the 
omission  here  may  be  simply  an  example  of  the  suppression  of 
passages  of  which  a  translation  has  already  been  given.  Scholars 
take  the  most  opposite  views  of  the  original  position.  Cornill 
thinks  it  stood  originally  in  xlvi  (a  non-Jeremianic  addition)  ; 
Giesebrccht  that  it  is  an  integral  part  of  the  present  prophecy  ; 
Driver  that  it  is  a  detached  fragment,  added  in  both  places  by  a 
compiler  ;  Orelli  that  it  is  from  the  hand  of  Jeremiah,  and  owes 
its  position  in  both  places  to  him.  The  strongly  marked  Deutero- 
Isaianic  colouring  of  10  forbids  us  to  regard  it  as  Jeremiah's,  but 
it  might  quite  well  be  an  original  element  of  the  present  non- 
Jeremianic  passage. 

10.  Jacob  my  servant.  This  designation  is  found  elsewhere  in 
this  book  only  in  the  parallel  passage  xlvi.  27,  28,  but  it  is  very 
common  in  the  Second  Isaiah,  one  of  whose  leading  thoughts  it  is 
that  Israel  is  the  Servant  of  Yahweh.  The  form  in  which  the 
sentence  opens  is  similarly  characteristic  of  II  Isaiah,  so  too 
'  fear  thou  not'  and  '  I  am  with  thee.' 

from  afar.     Probably  the  dispersion  is  intended. 
and  none  shall  make  him  afraid,    '  The  expression  is  used 
of  sheep  lying  undisturbed  upon  their  pastures '  (Driver). 

11.  We  could  hardly  believe  that  Jeremiah  uttered  this 
prophecy  of  the  annihilation  of  the  nations.  For  '  I  will  not  make 
a  full  end'  cf.  iv.  27,  v.  10,  18. 

I  will  correct  thee  with  judgement :  sec  note  on  x.  24. 

12-17.  Duhm  considers  that  in  12-15  ^^c  have  a  genuine  poem 

by  Jeremiah  (similarly  Kent).     It  is  Jercmianic  in  rhythm  and 

imagery,  but   this  may  be  due  to  imitation,  as  several   scholars 

suppose.     The  language  depicts  Judah's  condition  after  the  judge- 


76  JEREMIAH  30.  13-15.     S 

13  thy  wound  grievous.  There  is  none  to  plead  ^thy 
cause,   ^that    thou  mayest   be    bound   up:    thou    hast 

14  no  heahng  medicines.  All  thy  lovers  have  forgotten 
thee ;  they  seek  thee  not :  for  I  have  wounded  thee 
with  the  wound  of  an  enemy,  with  the  chastisement  of 
a  cruel  one;   for  the  c greatness  of  thine  iniquity,  be- 

15  cause  thy  sins  were  increased.     Why  criest  thou  <^Uor 

thy  hurt  ?    thy  pain  is   incurable  :    for  the   ^  greatness 

of  thine  iniquity,  because  thy  sins  were  increased,  I  have 

*  fOr,  thy  cause :  for  thy  wound  thou  hast  no  medicines  nor 
plaister         ^  Heb.yb/'  closing  up^  or,  pressing.  <=  Qr,  multitude 

^  f  Or,  for  thy  huti,  because  thy  pain  is  incurable  ? 

ment  has  been  executed,  but  if  Jeremiah's  the  passage  is  probably 
pre-exilic  rather  than  composed  just  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  It  is  perhaps  on  the  whole  more  likely  that  it  is  the 
work  of  a  later  writer. 

12.  Cf.  XV.  18,  where  Jeremiah  uses  with  reference  to  himself 
language  similar  to  that  here  used,  as  the  feminine  pronouns 
show,  with  reference  to  Zion.  Her  desperate  state  seems  now 
to  be  of  long  standing. 

13.  The  sudden  transition  from  the  medical  to  the  judicial 
metaphor  is  very  harsh,  and  the  text  is  accordingly  suspicious. 
The  R.V.  gives  the  sense  according  to  the  accents,  but  this  involves 
a  mixture  of  the  metaphors.  The  R.V.  marg.  avoids  this,  but  if 
the  text  is  retained  it  would  be  better  to  render  with  Driver, 
'  There  is  none  to  plead  thy  cause :  [there  are  no]  medicines  for 
the  sore ;  there  is  no  plaister  for  thee.'  It  would  be  better  still, 
with  Duhm,  to  omit  the  first  clause,  which  is  apparently  a  gloss. 
The  word  rendered  '  wound '  in  the  margin  means  something 
bound  up  rather  than  'pressing'  or  '  binding  up,'  so  that  'wound* 
is  the  correct  translation.    For  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  cf.  xlvi.  ii. 

14.  thy  lovers:  Zion's  old  heathen  allies  ;  cf.  iv.  30. 

The  latter  part  of  the  verse  ('  for  .  .  .  increased  ')  recurs  in  15. 
It  is  probable  that  the  repetition  is  due  to  accident ;  the  words 
come  better  in  15,  and  should  be  struck  out  here. 

15.  The  rendering  in  the  text  suggests  that  it  is  useless  for 
Zion  to  lament,  since  her  pain  is  incurable.  The  margin  is 
preferable,  though  '  that '  would  be  better  than  'because.'  Why 
should  Zion  complain  of  her  hurt,  that  no  remedy  can  assuage  her 
pain  or  heal  her  wound  ?  The  fault  is  all  her  own  ;  the  gravity 
of  her  punishment  is  due  recompense  for  the  gravity  of  her  crime, 
Rothstein  takes  15.  16  to  be  an  expansion. 


JEREMIAH  30.  i6,  17.     S  77 

done  these  things  unto  thee.  Therefore  all  they  that  if> 
devour  thee  shall  be  devoured  ;  and  all  thine  adversaries, 
every  one  of  them,  shall  go  into  captivity  ;  and  they  that 
spoil  thee  shall  be  a  spoil,  and  all  that  prey  upon  thee 
will  I  give  for  a  prey.  For  I  will  restore  ^health  unto  17 
thee,  and  I  will  heal  thee  of  thy  wounds,  saith  the  Lord  ; 
*  See  ch.  viii.  22. 

16,  17.  The  connexion  with  the  preceding  is  difficult,  since 
the  sinfulness  of  Zion  is  no  reason  for  its  restoration.  It  is 
questionable  whether  we  can  substitute  'nevertheless'  for  'there- 
fore,'  and  the  thought,  though  Zion  deserves  all  she  has  received 
I  will  nevertheless  punish  her  oppressors,  is  not  very  attractive. 
Keeping  the  present  text,  it  is  best  to  take  'therefore'  to  mean 
*  because  thy  case  is  so  desperate.'  The  words  '  It  is  Zion '  have 
by  many  been  taken  as  a  gloss,  but  it  was  too  obvious  that  Zion 
was  intended  for  the  need  of  such  a  gloss  to  be  felt.  The  LXX 
reads  *  This  is  your  quarry,'  the  Hebrew  word  for  'quarry  '  or 
'spoil'  being  very  similar  to  that  for  'Zion.'  If  this  is  accepted 
we  should  probably  correct  'your'  into  'our,'  the  two  being 
easily  confused  in  Greek.  Cornill,  who  proposes  this  emendation, 
then  reverses  the  order  of  16,  17.  He  thus  gets  rid  of  the 
difficulty  caused  by  'Therefore,'  but  instead  of  the  equally  unsuit- 
able 'For'  is  forced  to  read  '  I  '  {anoki  instead  of  ki).  He  also 
prepares  for  '  they  that  devour  thee  '  (Heb.  '  eat  thee  ')  by  the 
words  of  the  enemy  'This  is  our  quarry.'  The  reconstruction 
(which  is  accepted  by  Kent)  gives  a  smooth  and  orderly  text,  but 
it  is  reached  by  rather  drastic  measures,  and  further  involves  the 
elimination  of  the  words  'whom  no  man  seeketh  after,' which 
are  unsuitable  with  '  This  is  our  quarry.'  It  can  hardly  be  accepted 
with  any  confidence. 

16.  devour.  In  ii.  3  the  word  is  appropriate,  because  Israel 
has  just  been  described  as  '  the  first-fruits; '  its  use  here,  without 
any  such  explanation  in  the  context,  is  not  so  easy  to  understand. 
If  Cornill's  transposition  of  16  and  17  be  rejected,  we  should 
probably  see  here  a  reminiscence  of  ii.  3  :  cf.  x.  25. 

shall  g-o  into  captivity.  The  LXX  reads  '  shall  eat  their 
own  flesh.'  Cornill  accepts  this,  referring  to  Isa.  xlix.  26,  '  And 
I  will  feed  them  that  oppress  thee  with  their  own  flesh  ; '  we 
might  compare  Isa.  ix.  20.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  other 
clauses  of  the  verse  the  verbs  are  repeated  ('  devour .  . .  devoured,' 
&c.),  and  we  should  have  expected  this  clause  to  follow  the 
same  pattern. 

17.  restore  health  unto  thee:  rather  'bring  up  fresh  flesh 
upon  thee:'  see  note  on  viii.  22. 


78  JEREMIAH  30. 18-20,     S 

because  they  have  called  thee  an  outcast,  sayings  It  is 

18  Zion,  whom  no  man  ^  seeketh  after.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  :  Behold,  I  will  ^^  turn  again  the  captivity  of  Jacob's 
tents,  and  have  compassion  on  his  dwelling  places ;  and 
the  city  shall  be  builded  upon  her  own  c  heap,  and  the 

19  palace  shall  <^  remain  after  the  manner  thereof.  And  out 
of  them  shall  proceed  thanksgiving  and  the  voice  of  them 
that  make  merry :  and  I  will  multiply  them,  and  they  shall 
not  be  few ;  I  will  also  glorify  them,  and  they  shall  not 

30  be  small.  Their  children  also  shall  be  as  aforetime,  and 
their  congregation  shall  be  established  before  me,  and 

*  Or,  carethfor        ^  Or,  return  to         ^  Or,  mound   Heb.  tel. 
^  Or,  be  inhabited 


Zion.  For  the  LXX  reading  '  quarry '  see  above.  Modern 
suggestions  are  '  a  monument,'  *  a  desert,'  '  miserable.' 

18.  tnrn  ag'ain  the  captivity :    see  xxix.  14. 

the  city.  This  may  be  collective,  meaning  the  cities  of  Judah 
(and  similarly  '  the  palaces ' )  ;  if  a  particular  city  is  meant  it  WxW.  be 
Jerusalem.  It  is  to  be  rebuilt  on  its  tel  or  mound,  i.  e.  on  its  old 
site. 

remain  after  the  manner  thereof.  The  verb  means  to  dwell, 
and  may  be  rendered  as  in  the  margin,  or  *be  situated.'  If  the 
former,  the  phrase  means  that  the  palace  will  be  inhabited  as  it 
was  wont  to  be.  If  the  latter,  we  must  take  the  word  rendered 
'  manner'  (literally  'right')  to  be  equivalent  to  '  its  rightful  place,' 
which  forms  a  better  parallel  to  '  her  mound  '  than  the  R.V.,  which 
would  have  been  expressed  more  naturally  in  rather  different 
Hebrew. 

19.  When  Yahweh  turns  again  the  captivity  of  Zion,  their 
mouth  will  be  filled  with  thanksgiving  and  merriment  (Ps.  cxxvi. 
I,  2)  ;  and  they  will  not  have  to  mourn  over  a  land  depleted  of  its 
population  (contrast  Isa.  xxvi.  18,  rendering  <  been  born '  for 
'  fallen ').  They  will  no  longer  be  a  despised  people  (Isa.  liii.  2,  3), 
but  honoured  among  the  nations. 

20.  The  people  will  be  as  in  the  time  of  the  nation's  greatness 
and  prosperity  under  David  and  Solomon. 

congreg-ation :  a  characteristic  term  of  the  Priestly  Document 
in  the  Pentateuch.  Its  use  is  not  probable  in  a  pre-exilic  writer, 
who  would  have  regarded  Israel  as  a  State  rather  than  just  an 
ecclesiastical  community. 


JEREMIAH  30.  21-23.     S  79 

I  will  punish  all  that  oppress  them.  And  their  prince  21 
shall  be  of  themselves,  and  their  ruler  shall  proceed  from 
the  midst  of  them  ;  and  I  will  cause  him  to  draw  near, 
and  he  shall  approach  unto  me  :  for  who  is  he  that  ^  hath 
had  boldness  to  approach  unto  me?  saith  the  Lord. 
And  ye  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  your  God.  22 

^'Behold,  the  tempest  of  the  Lord,  eimi  his  fury,  is  23 
gone  forth,  a  c  sweeping  tempest :  it  shall  burst  upon  the 

*  Heb.  hath  been  surety  for  his  heart.         ^  See  ch.  xxiii.  19,  20. 
'^  Ovy  gathering 

21.  They  will  be  governed  by  a  native  ruler  ;  the  term  'king'  is 
avoided.  The  contrast  is  with  the  government  by  foreign  empires, 
Assyria,  Egypt,  Babylon,  Persia,  possibly  Greece.  This  ruler 
will  stand  in  the  most  intimate  relations  with  God,  to  whom 
indeed  he  will  act  as  priest.  Not,  however,  as  earlier  high-handed 
kings  who  took  it  on  themselves  to  approach  God.  That  no  one 
would  dare  to  do  who  truly  understood  what  the  approach  of 
a  sinful  mortal  to  the  holy  God  involved  (Isa.  vi.  5  :  cf.  Luke  v.  8). 
He  will  not  take  the  dread  function  on  himself  (cf.  Heb.  v.  4),  but 
God  will  graciously  cause  him  to  draw  nigh.  It  is  possible  that 
priestly  privilege  and  duty  are  not  claimed  here  for  the  ruler,  but 
the  language  has  more  point,  if  the  prince  is  also  the  priest.  It 
would  be  easiest  to  understand  this  ideal  if  the  author  was  writing 
in  the  time  of  the  Maccabean  priest-kings,  but  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  passage  is  so  late. 

22.  Cf.  xxiv.  7,  xxxi.  33.  This  verse  is  absent  from  the  LXX, 
and  is  probably  an  insertion,  on  account  of  the  transition  to  the 
second  person  plural,  and  the  anticipation  of  xxxi.  i. 

23.  24.  These  verses  occur,  in  a  quite  unsuitable  context,  in 
xxiii.  19,  20  ^see  notes  on  that  passage).  Here  a  prediction  of 
judgement  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  eschatological  terror  of 
the  passage,  and  Duhm  considers  them  to  be  in  their  original 
connexion.  Others  regard  them  as  an  insertion,  *  The  wicked,' 
according  to  the  general  use  of  the  term,  are  not  the  heathen  but 
ungodly  Jews,  and  the  verses  mean  that  before  the  restoration 
(xxxi.  i)  can  take  place,  a  sifting  blast  of  judgement  is  to  go  through 
the  people,  destroying  the  wicked,  and  leaving  only  the  righteous 
to  form  the  new  nation.  But  this  thought  is  scarcely  in  harmony 
with  the  general  drift  of  these  chapters,  so  that  the  verses  are 
probably  an  insertion. 

sweeping'.   The  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  is  uncertain  ;  if 
the  text  is  correct,  we  may  render  'sweeping'  or  *  roaring.'     But 


8o  JEREMIAH  30.  24— 31.  2.     S  J 

24  head  of  the  wicked.  The  fierce  anger  of  the  Lord  shall 
not  return,  until  he  have  executed,  and  till  he  have  per- 
formed the  intents  of  his  heart :  in  the  latter  days  ye 
shall  understand  it. 

31  At  that  time,  saith  the  Lord,  will  I  be  the  God  of  all  the 
2  families  of  Israel,  and  they  shall  be  my  people,    [j]  Thus 


we  should  probably  substitute  the  very  similar  word  found  in  the 
parallel  passage,  '  whirling '  (xxiii.  19). 

xzxi.  1.  This  verse  forms  a  link  between  the  two  chapters,  and 
should  therefore  be  assigned  to  the  author  who  composed  the  two 
chapters,  on  the  basis  of  Jeremianic  material.  In  the  bright  future 
Yahweh  will  be  the  God  of  all  the  Hebrew  tribes,  not  of  one 
section  alone.  The  disruption  created  by  the  folly  of  Rehoboam 
will  be  repaired. 

2-6.  This  section  is  now  generally  regarded  as  containing 
a  poem  by  Jeremiah  on  the  restoration  of  the  northern  tribes. 
It  probably  belongs  to  his  earliest  period,  like  the  similar  utterance 
in  the  third  chapter. 

2.  The  verse  is  difficult.  The  R.V.  text  takes  us  back  to  the 
Exodus,  when  Yahweh  intervened  to  save  His  people.  This  is 
strongly  recommended  by  the  reference  to  the  wilderness,  which 
reminds  us  of  Jeremiah's  description  of  the  love  between  Yahweh 
and  His  people  in  the  period  of  the  wandering  (ii.  2,  3,  7)  which 
culminated  in  His  gracious  bestowal  of  the  land  of  Canaan  wherein 
she  might '  rest '  (ii.  7  :  cf.  Exod.  xxxiii.  14  ;  Deut.  iii.  20,  xii.  9,  10  ; 
Joshua  xxii.  4).  The  contrast  of  tenses  here  and  in  4  ff.  also  favours 
this  reference  to  the  past.  More  probably,  however,  we  should 
take  the  meaning  to  be  that  Israel  in  its  captivity  has  found  favour 
and  will  be  restored.  This  is  the  main  subject  of  the  poem,  and 
while  it  is  not  uncommon  for  the  restoration  to  be  compared  with 
the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  we  should  expect  the  transition  to  be 
made  plain.  The  tense  is  prophetic,  and  we  should  render  *  hath 
found,'  i.e.  will  find.  The  < wilderness'  must  then  be  taken  as 
a  figurative  expression  for  the  land  of  exile,  which  while  literally 
inappropriate,  is  chosen  partly  with  a  backward  glance  at  the 
wilderness  wandering,  but  chiefly  under  the  influence  of  Hosea's 
words  :  '  Therefore,  behold,  I  will  allure  her,  and  bring  her  into 
the  wilderness,  and  speak  to  her  heart'  (Hos.  ii.  14).  It  must 
be  admitted  that  such  a  use  of  the  term  without  express  indication 
that  the  usual  sense  is  not  intended  is  rather  strange.  Erbt  deletes 
it,  but  it  would  be  better  to  emend  the  text.  Cornill  suggests  the 
word  rendered  '  dungeon  '  in  Isa.  xlii.  7  (masger  for  midbdr), 
which  is  there  used  as  a  metaphor  for  captivity. 


JEREMIAH  31.  3,  4.     J  81 

saith  the  Lord,  The  people  which  were  left  of  the  sword 
^  found  grace  in  the  wilderness ;  even  Israel,  ^  when  I 
went  to  cause  him  to  rest.  The  Lord  appeared  ^of  old  3 
unto  me,  sayings  Yea,  I  have  loved  thee  with  an  everlast- 
ing love :  therefore  ^  with  lovingkindness  have  I  drawn 
thee.    Again  will  I  build  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  built,  O  4 

*  Or,  have  found  .  .  .  zv/teii  I  go  '^  fOr,  zv/ien  he  went  to  find 

hint  rest         ^  f  Or,  front  afar        '^  Or,  have  I  continued  lovingkind- 
ness unto  thee 

left  of  the  sword.  This  expression  cannot  easily  be  reconciled 
with  a  reference  to  the  Exodus,  but  it  accurately  describes  what 
happened  in  connexion  with  exile,  since  the  captives  were  the 
survivors  of  a  nation  decimated  by  war  or  by  executions. 

Israel:  i.e.,  as  the  sequel  shows,  the  Northern  Kingdom. 
Duhm  connects  the  word,  which  is  in  the  Hebrew  the  last  word  of 
2,  with  3,  changing  it  into  '  God  will  regard'  {yashur  V/),  which 
gives  a  parallelism  with  *  Yahweh  appears.' 

when  I  .  .  .  rest.  It  would  be  better  to  make  Israel  the 
subject  as  in  the  margin,  *  when  he  went  to  find  him  rest.' 

3.  Israel  is  the  speaker,  but  it  would  be  better  to  read,  with 
the  LXX,  <■  unto  him.' 

of  old.  The  marginal  rendering  *  from  afar  '  should  have  been 
adopted  in  the  text  here,  as  in  xxx.  10,  li.  50,  '  remember  Yahweh 
from  afar,'  and  *  hath  appeared '  should  be  substituted  for 
'  appeared.'  Yahweh  from  His  distant  home  in  Palestine  (li.  50) 
appears  to  His  people,  languishing  in  exile,  as  their  deliverer. 
Rothstein  reads  *  He  that  hath  compassion  on  him  '  {m^rahdmo), 
and  omits  '  the  Lord.' 

with  lovingkindness  .  .  .  thee.  The  margin  gives  the 
same  sense  to  the  verb  as  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  10  ('  continue  thy  loving- 
kindness  :'  cf.  Ps.  cix.  12,  R.V.  marg.).  The  thought  is 
quite  appropriate  ;  the  unchanging  God,  in  spite  of  all  Israel's 
unfaithfulness  and  the  severity  with  which  He  has  treated  her, 
still  cherishes  His  ancient  love.  The  rendering  in  the  text  should 
probably  be  preferred  ;  the  influence  of  Hosea  on  this  congenial 
spirit  was  deep,  and  we  should  interpret  this  passage  in  the  light 
of  Hos.  xi.  4,  '  I  drew  them  with  cords  of  a  man,  with  bands  of 
love.'  It  would  be  better  to  substitute  '  I  draw  thee  '  for  '  have 
I  drawn  thee.'  His  arms  of  love,  which  once  clasped  Ephraim, 
upheld  and  guided  his  first  tottering  steps  (Hos.  xi.  3%  now  reach 
out  to  draw  him  back  from  the  '  far  country '  to  his  Father's  house. 

4.  Once  again  Israel  will  be  firmly  established  in  her  own  land, 
and  renew  her  ancient  life  of  peaceful  toil  relieved  by  innocent 

II  G 


82  JEREMIAH  31.  4.     J 

virgin  of  Israel :  again  shalt  thou  be  adorned  with  thy 
tabrets,  and  shalt  go  forth  in  the  dances  of  them  that 

mirth  and  festivity.  This  idyllic  picture  deserves  to  be  made 
prominent  in  any  estimate  of  Jeremiah  ;  it  is  one  of  many  indica- 
tions that  he  was  no  sour  and  morose  enemy  of  recreation  and 
merriment.  Cornill  justly  emphasizes  the  significance  of  the  fact 
that  he  should  mention  first  in  his  description  of  the  consequences 
of  the  restoration,  not  lofty  spiritual  blessings,  but  tabrets  and 
dances. 

slialt  thou  .  .  .  tabrets.  Israel  is  here  addressed  under  the 
figure  of  a  maiden,  who  on  a  festal  occasion  decks  herself  with 
tabrets.  It  is  the  whole  people  which  is  thus  to  be  as  light-hearted 
and  enter  as  fully  into  the  merry-making  as  a  young  maiden 
would.  No  doubt  the  actual  dancing  and  timbrel-playing  on  the 
part  of  the  virgins  would  constitute  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
forms  of  this  festivity.  Jeremiah,  in  spite  of  his  exclusion  from  it, 
had  doubtless  often  felt  the  sympathetic  thrill  as  he  watched  the 
happy  scene.  The  word  rendered  '  tabret '  is  in  several  cases 
rendered  '  timbrel.'  It  consisted  of  a  wooden  or  metal  ring,  over 
which  a  skin  was  tightly  stretched.  It  was  a  kind  of  hand-drum 
or  tambourine,  used  specially  by  women,  who  held  it  in  one  hand 
and  played  on  it  with  the  fingers  of  the  other.  Miriam  led  the 
women  with  her  timbrel,  and  they  followed  her  with  timbrels  and 
dances,  to  celebrate  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh's  army  (Exod.  xv.  20, 
21) ;  and  Jephthah  was  welcomed  by  his  ill-fated  daughter,  his 
only  child,  'with  timbrels  and  with  dances,'  when  he  returned 
from  his  victory  over  the  Ammonites  (Judges  xi.  34). 

the  dances  of  them  that  make  merry.  These  would  be  cele- 
brated especially  at  the  harvest  and  vintage,  and  the  maidens  were 
prominent  in  them,  as  we  see  from  the  story  of  the  marriage  by 
capture  of  the  daughters  of  Shiloh  (Judges  xxi.  19-21 :  cf  ix.  27). 
Dancing  has  become  so  completely  secularized,  to  say  the  least,  in 
modern  life  that  it  requires  an  effort  of  imagination  to  realize  to 
what  extent  it  has  been  a  religious  exercise.  It  has  been  so  prac- 
tised in  many  ages  and  by  many  peoples.  Among  the  Hebrews  the 
most  conspicuous  example  is  that  of  David,  who  when  the  ark  was 
brought  into  his  city,  '  danced  before  Yahweh  with  all  his  might ' 
(2  Sam.  vi.  14),  and  met  Michal's  prudish  censure  of  his  indeco- 
rous enthusiasm  with  the  reply,  '  I  will  be  yet  more  vile.'  Such 
glowing  rehgion  the  conventional  are  apt  to  despise,  and  a  frigid 
morality  has  no  insight  to  comprehend  it.  On  the  place  of  danc- 
ing in  the  religion  of  the  post-exilic  period  the  essay  by  Franz 
Delitzsch,  '  Dancing  and  the  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  in  Rela- 
tion to  One  Another'  {Iris,  pp.  189-204),  will  be  found  of  in- 
terest. 


JEREMIAH  31.  5.     J  83 

make  merry.     Again  bhalt  thou  plant  vineyards  upon  the  5 
mountains  of  Samaria  :  the  planters  shall  plant,  and  shall 


5.  This  verse  presupposes  that  the  vineyards  of  Samaria  had 
been  destroyed.  To  replant  them  implies  that  the  owners  were 
confident  in  the  security  of  their  tenure.  For  while  corn  may  be 
sown  and  reaped  within  a  few  months,  several  years  have  to  pass 
before  the  vineyard  (and  still  more  the  oliveyard)  makes  any 
return.  No  one  would  be  willing  to  invest  his  labour  and  risk  his 
money  in  planting  vineyards,  unless  there  was  a  reasonable  pros- 
pect that  no  foe  would  be  likely  to  ravage  it.  It  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  in  war  the  vineyards  would  inevitably  be 
destroyed  by  the  invaders  ;  unless  hostilities  were  pushed  to  an 
extreme  they  and  the  oliveyards  were  usually  spared.  But  their 
destruction  was  frequently  effected  in  warfare.  (See  Ramsay, 
Pauline  and  Other  Studies,  pp.  232-41,)  Hence  the  promise  thac 
every  man  should  sit  under  his  own  vine  and  fig-tree,  was  tanta- 
mount to  the  assurance  that  the  country  would  enjoy  peace,  and 
its  inhabitants  an  undisturbed  possession.  '  The  mountains  of 
Samaria '  (Amos  iii.  9)  are  those  of  the  kingdom  generally,  not 
simply  of  the  capital,  which  of  course  had  its  fruitful  vineyards 
(Isa.  xxviii.  i).  Vineyards  were  planted  in  terraces  on  the  moun- 
tain slopes  (cf.  Isa.  v.  i,  *  my  well-beloved  had  a  vineyard  in  a 
very  fruitful  hill ')  for  the  sake  of  the  sunny  exposure,  and  because 
the  soil  was  more  favourable.  In  his  essay  'The  Bible  and  Wine' 
{Iris,  pp.  171-85),  Delitzsch  says:  'The  experiments  of  recent 
times  confirm  the  fact,  that  while  the  sandy  soil  of  the  coast  yields 
more,  the  chalky  soil  of  the  highlands  yields  better  wine  '  (p.  174). 
The  mention  of  Samaria  attests  the  Jercmianic  origin  of  the  poem  ; 
a  post-exilic  writer  would  hardly  have  spoken  thus  of  Jerusalem's 
hated  rival. 

the  planters  .  .  thereof.  The  text  is  uncertain,  but  the 
R.V.  probably  gives  the  general  sense.  The  margin  justifies  the 
rendering  '  enjoy  '  by  its  references.  According  to  Lev.  xix.  23- 
25  the  fruit  was  treated  as  '  uncircumcised,'  and  therefore  not  to 
be  eaten  for  the  first  three  years.  In  the  fourth  year  it  was  '  holy 
for  giving  praise  unto  Yahweh.'  In  the  fifth  year  it  could  be 
eaten.  It  was,  in  other  words,  at  first  taboo,  unfit  for  God,  with- 
held from  man.  The  ceremonial  offering  to  Yahweh  in  the  fourth 
year  removed  its  '  uncircumcision,'  and  rendered  it  fit  for  profane 
or  common  use  in  the  fifth  year  ;  just  as  the  crops  could  not  be 
eaten  till  the  firstfruits  had  been  offered.  Instead  of  'enjoy  the 
LXX  read  '  praise.'  The  two  verbs  are  almost  identical  in 
Hebrew.  The  problem  raised  by  the  variation  is  not  quite  simple, 
but  since  it  is  probable  on  metrical  grounds  that  some  words  have 
fallen  out,  it  seems  best  to  conclude  that  the  original  text  had 
G  2 


84  JEREMIAH  31.  6.     J 

6  '"^  enjoy  the  fruit  thereof.     For  there  shall  be  a  day,  that 

^  Heb.  profane,  or,  make  common.     See  Lev.  xix.  23-25  ; 
Deut.  XX.  6,  xxviii.  30, 

'and  praise  Yahweh'  at  the  endof  the  verse,  and  that  the  Hebrew 
retained  one  of  the  two  very  similar  verbs,  the  LXX  the  other. 
This  was  perhaps  facihtated  by  the  previous  omission  of  one  verb 
in  the  text  from  which  both  our  texts  are  drawn,  the  word  retained 
being  diversely  read. 

6.  This  verse  is  closely  connected  with  the  preceding,  and 
formally  appears  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  poem  ;  Duhm  and 
Giesebrecht  regard  it  as  such,  but  Cornill  thinks  it  must  be  a  later 
addition,  and  Kent  apparently  inclines  to  adopt  his  opinion. 
Cornill  cannot  harmonize  the  view,  which  seems  to  underlie  the 
passage,  that  Yahweh  dwells  on  Zion  and  is  only  there  to  be 
sought  and  found,  with  the  teaching  of  a  prophet  who  places  religion 
wholly  in  the  heart  and  reins  of  men,  and  says  of  the  Temple 
that,  unless  the  people  mend  their  ways,  it  will  share  the  fate  of 
Shiloh.  And  while  the  ancient  schism  between  north  and  south 
would  doubtless  give  place  to  a  complete  reunion,  it  is  precarious 
to  regard  this  as  essentially  ecclesiastical.  These  objections  are 
not  without  weight ;  in  particular  the  suggestion  that  to  find 
Yahweh  the  Ephraimites  must  go  to  Zion  is  not  easy  to  reconcile 
with  the  detachment  of  religion  from  material  conditions.  Yet  we 
should  probably  regard  the  verse  as  authentic.  While  religion 
was  for  the  prophet  a  personal  relation  with  a  personal  God,  it  is 
very  hard  to  believe  that  he  expected  it  to  dispense  with  external 
expression  ;  and  if  it  became  individual  it  did  not  cease  to  be 
communal.  Christianity  is  also  in  its  essence  a  delocalized,  de- 
materialized  religion  ;  '  neither  in  this  mountain  nor  in  Jerusalem 
shall  ye  worship  the  Father,'  an  utterance  more  drastic  than  any 
from  the  lips  of  Jeremiah,  more  irreconcilable  if  taken  literally 
with  the  recognition  of  any  place  of  worship.  It  proclaims  that 
God  is  Spirit,  and  demands  a  corresponding  worship  in  spirit  and 
truth.  Yet  for  all  its  inwardness,  it  always  seeks  an  outward 
expression;  and  though  such  expression  has  constantly  withdrawn 
the  vital  force  from  the  secret  centre  to  the  surface,  that  is  the 
fatal  exaggeration  of  an  intrinsic  quality.  Similarly  we  may  hold 
that  while  Jeremiah  looked  forward  to  a  deep  spiritual  experience 
for  each  member  of  the  reunited  nation,  which  should  make  each 
independent  of  all  his  fellows  for  the  personal  knowledge  of  God 
and  communion  with  Him,  he  also  anticipated  that  this  would  not 
be  buried  in  the  individual  heart,  but  would  rather  seek  expression 
in  congenial  forms.  Indeed,  the  community  of  experience  would 
inevitably  involve  community  of  worship.  But  it  may  still  be 
asked,  Would  Jeremiah  have  singled  out  Zion  and  spoken  as  if 


JEREMIAH  31.  7.     JS  85 

the  watchmen  upon  the  hills  of  Ephraim  shall  cry,  Arise 
ye,  and  let  us  go  up  to  Zion  unto  the  Lord  our  God. 
[S]  For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  Sing  with  gladness  for  Jacob,  7 
and  shout  ^  for  the  chief  of  the  nations  :  publish  ye,  praise 
*  fOr,  at  the  head 

there  alone  God  and  His  people  could  meet  ?  Would  he  not  rather 
have  said  that  they  would  go  to  their  own  local  sanctuary  for  their 
service  of  thanksgiving?  In  a  regenerated  Israel  the  worship  at  the 
high  places  might  be  resumed,  for  the  old  abuses  would  have  dis- 
appeared. And  we  may  well  believe  that  Jeremiah  would  have 
favoured  this  renewal.  But  this  would  not  have  met  all  the  need 
he  felt.  If  the  feud  between  Judah  and  Ephraim  had  been  healed, 
the  new  national  consciousness  demanded,  in  a  people  for  whom 
the  national  and  the  religious  were  so  closely  united,  a  religious 
expression.  The  long-sundered  tribes  must  express  their  spiritual 
as  well  as  their  political  unity.  And  this  would  most  naturally 
take  the  form  of  a  religious  reunion  at  Jerusalem,  the  capital  of 
the  undivided  kingdom.  Not  that  God  dwelt  only  in  Zion  or 
could  be  found  there  alone.  Those  who  spoke  as  in  this  verse 
could  equally  well  have  said,  Let  us  goto  the  sanctuary  of  our  own 
city  to  Yahweh  our  God.  And  it  is  a  fine  feature  in  the  descrip- 
tion that  the  Ephraimites  should  spontaneously  resolve  to  celebrate 
their  happy  fortune  in  Jerusalem. 

watchmen.  The  word  is  often  explained  as  a  designation  of 
those  who  were  set  on  the  hills  to  watch  for  the  appearance  of  the 
new  moon.  But  the  word  seems  to  be  used  simply  in  the  sense 
'  to  guard,'  so  that  the  meaning  is  rather  the  keepers  of  the  vine- 
yards or  orchards.  This  gives  a  good  sense,  but  a  slight  correction 
{bots^rim  for  itots^rim)  would  give  the  meaning  'grape  gatherers,' 
which  would  suit  the  connexion  even  better. 

7-14.  These  verses,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  last  clause 
of  9,  are  probably  to  be  assigned  to  the  post-exilic  author  to  whom 
we  owe  the  composition  of  xxx,  xxxi  as  a  whole.  The  points  of 
contact  with  the  Second  Isaiah  are  striking,  and  the  deliverance  is 
regarded  as  on  the  eve  of  accomplishment. 

7.  Sing*  .  .  .  for  Jacob.  It  is  not  clear  to  whom  the  command 
is  addressed  ;  the  LXX  reads  'the  Lord  saith  to  Jacob'  (so 
Cornill).  This  may  well  be  correct,  though  the  Hebrew  text  is 
satisfactory  enough. 

for  the  chief  of  the  nations.  The  margin  is  the  more  natural 
translation,  but  it  is  not  free  from  objection,  and  we  should  probably 
accept  with  most  recent  scholars  Duhm's  emendation  '  mountains' 
for  'nations'  {hdn'nt  for  ^o_>'iw),  'shout  on  the  top  of  the  mountains  ;' 
the  phrase  is  an  imitation  of  the  Second  Isaiah's  'let  them  shout 


86  JEREMIAH  31.  8.     S 

ye,  and  say,  O  Lord,  save  thy  people,  the  remnant  of 
Israel.  Behold,  I  will  bring  them  from  the  north  country, 
and  gather  them  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth, 
and  with  them  the  blind  and  the  lame,  the  woman  with 
child  and  her  that  travaileth  with  child  together  :  a  great 

from  the  top  of  the  mountains'  (Isa.  xlii.  ii),  and  was  further 
occasioned  by  the  mention  of  '  the  mountains  of  Samaria  '  and 
'the  hills  of  Ephraim'  in  the  preceding  context. 

O  IiOBD,  save  thy  people.  We  should  read,  with  the  LXX  and 
Targum,  'The  Lord  has  saved  his  people  :'  cf  Isa.  xlviii.  20.  There 
is  no  longer  need  to  implore  Yahweh  to  deliver  them,  the  shout  of 
joy  implies  that  the  deliverance  is  achieved  ;  the  Hebrew  text  has 
probably  originated  from  the  liturgical  use  of  the  word  'Hosanna' 
('save  now,'  accordingto  the  usual  interpretation,  but  see  Cheyne's 
article  '  Hosanna '  in  the  Enc.  Bib.). 

8.  I  will  bring":  better  '  I  am  bringing.'  The  Israelites  return 
not  simply  from  the  north,  but  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth  (for  the  combination  cf.  vi.  22) ;  this  suggests  a  much  wider 
dispersion  than  in  Jeremiah's  time,  but  cf  Isa.  xliii.  6. 

tlie  blind  .  .  .  tog-etheri  The  reference  to  the  blind  comes 
from  Isa.  xlii.  16,  for  that  to  the  lame  we  may  compare  Isa.  xxxv. 
6.  The  latter  passage  occurs  in  a  chapter  which  presents  other 
parallels  to  our  passage,  but  is  itself  a  late  imitative  composition 
largely  based  on  Isa.  xl-lv.  It  is  rather  improbable  that  our  author 
was  acquainted  with  it.  The  latter  part  is  suggested  by  Isa.  xl.  11, 
but  the  application  is  different. 

hither :  i.  e.  to  Palestine,  in  which  the  author  was  writing. 
Duhm  points  differently,  reading  the  word  for  '  Behold '  and  con- 
nects it  with  the  next  verse,  which  thus  opens  as  the  present 
verse  (so  Rothstein), 

9.  Thej^  come  with  tears  (1.  4)  of  penitence  (as  in  the  moving 
passage  iii.  21,  'the  weeping  of  the  supplications  of  the  children  of 
Israel ')  and  of  joy.  The  LXX  gives  quite  a  different  turn  to  the 
passage  :  '  They  went  forth  with  weeping,  but  with  consolation 
will  I  bring  them  back,'  i.e.  they  went  into  exile  with  sorrow,  but 
I  will  bring  them  back  with  comfort.  This  yields  an  excellent 
sense,  and  may  very  well  be  correct.  We  have  a  similar  contrast 
in  Ps.  cxxvi.  6,  but  Isa.  liv.  7,  8  supplies  a  parallel  to  the  sense  of 
a  more  real  if  less  formal  kind.  In  any  case  it  would  be  well  to 
substitute  'consolations'  for  'supplications.'  The  latter  is  not 
quite  suitable  to  the  situation,  it  has  probably  intruded  into  the 
passage  under  the  influence  of  iii.  21,  which,  however,  deals  with 
the  penitence  that  preceded  the  restoration  (cf  also  Zech.  xii.  10). 
The  LXX    is  supported   by  the  great  prominence  given  by  the 


JEREMIAH  31.  9.     S  87 

company  shall  they  return  hither.    They  shall  come  with  9 
weeping,  and  with  supplications  will  I  lead  them  :  I  will 
^  cause  them  to  walk  by  rivers  of  waters,  in  a  straight  way 
wherein  they  shall  not  stumble :  for  I  am  a  father  to  Is- 
rael, and  Ephraim  is  my  firstborn. 

"  fOr,  bring  thent  unto 

Second  Isaiah  to  the  comforting  of  Israel,  of.  Isa.  xl.  r,  2  (which 
strikes  the  keynote  of  Isa.  xl-lv),  xliii.  i  flF.,  xliv.  21-23,  xlix.  13, 
14  ff.,  li.  3,  12,  Hi.  9,  liv.  10. 

lead  them  :  rightly  connected  with  the  preceding  words. 
Hitzig  and  Graf  preferred  to  connect  with  what  follows,  '  They 
shall  come  with  weeping  and  with  supplications:  I  will  lead  them, 
I  will  cause  them  to  walk  ;'  for  a  similar  combination  cf.  Ps.  xliii.  3. 
For  Mead'  cf.  Isa.  xl.  11,  xlviii.  21,  xlix.  10,  Iv.  12  ;  Ps.  xxiii.  2. 

rivers  of  waters:  cf.  Isa.  xli.  18,  xliii.  19,  20,  xlviii.  21,  xlix. 
10.  The  way  across  the  desert  was,  according  to  the  Second 
Isaiah,  to  be  relieved  of  all  its  peril  from  thirst  and  its  discomforts, 
so  that  Yahweh  might  lead  His  people  back  in  security  and  joy. 
The  author  of  this  passage,  like  the  author  of  Isa.  xxxv,  writing  with 
reference  to  the  return  from  the  dispersion,  takes  up  the  Second 
Isaiah's  language,  though  with  a  less  restricted  application.  Yah- 
weh brings  His  people  to  the  rivers,  as  the  shepherd  his  sheep,  so 
that  they  are  not  tormented  with  thirst. 

a  Btraig-ht  way.  A  better  rendering  would  be  '  an  even  way.' 
All  the  roughness  of  the  road  is  to  be  smoothed  out  of  it,  so  that 
there  is  nothing  against  which  the  weary  or  the  careless  should 
stumble:  cf.  Isa.  xl.  4  (marg.),  xlii.  16,  also  xlv.  2  (with  reference 
to  Cyrus),  Heb.  xii.  13.  The  author  of  Isa.  xxxv  anticipates  that 
a  raised  way  will  be  specially  constructed  and  reserved  for  the  holy 
pilgrims  to  Zion,  along  which  the  unclean  shall  not  be  permitted 
to  travel,  and  from  which  the  godless  ('  fools  shall  not  go  to  and 
fro  on  it')  shall  be  excluded,  while  it  will  be  too  elevated  for  wild 
beasts  to  climb  up  to  it. 

for  Z  am  .  .  .  firstborn:  cf.  20,  where  also  Ephraim  is  used 
of  the  northern  tribes,  Israel  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  term  as 
contrasted  with  Judah.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  Yahweh  to  be 
represented  as  the  Father  of  Israel  in  the  wider  sense,  and  Israel 
as  Yahweh's  son,  sometimes  His  firstborn  son  (Exod.  iv.  22,  'Israel 
is  my  son,  my  firstborn  '),  while  in  Ps.  Ixxxix.  27  Yahweh  says 
with  reference  to  the  king,  '  I  also  will  make  him  my  firstborn.' 
The  thought  that  Ephraim  as  contrasted  with  Judah  possesses  the 
right  of  the  firstborn  is  rare.  Wc  read  in  i  Chron.  v.  1-3  that 
while  Reuben  was  the  firstborn  he  forfeited  his  birthright,  by  his 


88  JEREMIAH  31.  lo.     S 

ro      Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  O  ye  nations,  and  declare 
it  in  the  isles  afar  off;  and  say,  He  that  scattered  Israel 

misconduct,  to  the  sons  of  Joseph.  In  2  Sam.  xix.  43  the  LXX 
represents  the  men  of  Israel  (i.e.  the  ten  tribes)  as  saying  to  the 
men  of  Judah  '  I  am  older'  {literally  '  firstborn ')  '  than  thou.'  In 
Hos.  xi.  I  Israel  must  apparently  mean  the  people  as  a  whole, 
since  the  reference  is  to  the  Exodus  (unless  Hosea  believed  that 
Judah  was  not  in  Egypt),  but  he  continues  in  3,  '  Yet  I  taught 
Ephraim  to  go,'  as  if  '  Israel'  and  'Ephraim'  could  be  used  inter- 
changeably. There  is  much  force  in  Cornill's  plea  that  a  post- 
exilic  writer  would  hardly  have  spoken  of  Ephraim  in  this  way, 
and  in  his  inference  that  this  clause  is  the  work  of  Jeremiah.  He 
regards  it  as  the  continuation  of  5  and  as  effecting  the  transition 
to  15  ff.  With  the  deletion  of  6  it  is  easier  to  retain  the  clause. 
If  6  is  retained  for  Jeremiah,  this  clause  obviously  cannot  follow 
upon  it,  and  it  is  questionable  if  it  follows  appropriately  on  5  ;  apart 
from  the  difficulty  of  interpolating  it  between  5  and  6.  Yet  if  it  is 
from  Jeremiah  it  cannot  have  originally  belonged  to  a  context  so 
saturated  with  Deutero-Isaianic  words  and  ideas.  We  may  then 
either  take  it  as  post-exilic  like  the  context  in  which  it  stands,  in 
spite  of  the  difficulty  that  a  Palestinian  Jew  should  accord  the  pre- 
cedence to  Ephraim,  or  regard  it  as  the  work  of  Jeremiah  which 
is  out  of  its  original  connexion.  In  the  present  writer's  opinion  it 
would  stand  at  the  close  of  20  more  fitly  than  anywhere  else  in  the 
chapter. 

10.  The  proclamation  recalls  Isa.  xli.  i,  xlii.  10,  xlix.  i  ;  more- 
over in  each  of  these  passages  '  the  isles '  are  mentioned,  a  very 
characteristic  phrase  of  the  Second  Isaiah,  used,  with  a  somewhat 
indeterminate  application,  of  the  coastlands  and  islands  of  the 
Mediterranean,  often  with  a  suggestion  of  distance  as  here  ('isles 
afar  off').  The  nations  learn  that  it  was  Yahweh  who  had  sent 
His  people  into  exile.  Ezekiel  regards  the  glory  of  Yahweh  as 
compromised  not  only  by  the  sin  of  Israel,  which  stained  His  repu- 
tation among  the  heathen,  but  by  the  punishment,  which  after 
much  forbearance  He  had  inflicted  on  Israel,  inasmuch  as  this 
exposed  Him  to  the  taunt  of  the  heathen  that  He  was  powerless 
to  defend  His  own  people :  cf.  Isa.  Hi.  5.  Hence  it  is  a  theological 
necessity  for  Ezekiel  that  Yahweh  should  make  plain  to  the 
nations  by  the  restoration  of  Israel  that  He  had  been  responsible 
for  its  captivity,  and  had  not  yielded  to  external  necessity.  So 
the  author  of  this  passage  proclaims  to  the  nations  that  it  was 
Yahweh,  who  had  scattered  His  people,  who  would  now  bring 
them  back  from  the  dispersion. 

declare.    If  the   persons  addressed  in  the  two  clauses  are 
the  same,  the  nations  are  first  to  hear  the  word,  then  declare  it  in 


JEREMIAH  31.  11,12.     S  89 

will  gather  him,  and  keep  him,  as  a  shepherd  doth  his 
flock.     For  the  Lord  hath  ransomed  Jacob,  and   re-  n 
deemed  him  from  the  hand  of  him  that  was  stronger  than 
he.    And  they  shall  come  and  sing  in  the  height  of  Zion,  12 
and  shall  flow  together  unto  the  goodness  of  the  Lord, 


the  far  lands.  Perhaps,  however,  the  author  meant  nothing  so 
definite  as  this,  his  language  being  rhetorical  rather  than  exact. 
The  present  writer  suspects  that  the  text  originally  ran,  '  give  ear, 
ye  isles  afar  off.'  Cf.  Isa.  xlix.  i,  where  the  word  rendered 
'  Listen '  is  that  translated  *  Hear  '  in  our  passage,  and  a  synonym 
(though  not  the  same  as  here  proposed)  occurs  in  the  parallel  line. 
In  any  case  'and  say'  should  probably  be  struck  out. 

will  grather  .  .  .  flock  :  based  on  Isa.  xl.  11 ;  cf.  Jer.  xxiii.  3, 
Ezek.  xxxiv,  12  fT. 

11.  ransomed  .  .  .  redeemed.  The  former  of  these  verbs  is 
not  used  by  Jeremiah  with  reference  to  the  people,  and  once  only 
besides  (xv.  21)  ;  the  latter  is  not  used  at  all,  occurring  elsewhere 
in  the  book  only  in  1.  34  :  both  are  favourite  expressions  of  the 
Psalmists,  the  latter  of  the  Second  Isaiah  also. 

strongfer  than  he :  cf.  Ps.  xxxv.  10,  Isa.  xlix.  24, 25. 

12.  When  the  people  are  thus  settled  in  Palestine  they  come  to 
Zion  to  celebrate  their  deliverance  :  cf.  Isa.  li.  11  (quoted  in  xxxv. 
io\  It  is  not  clear,  however,  what  is  meant  by  the  words  '  shall 
flow  together  unto  the  goodness  of  the  Lord.'  They  might  be 
a  description  of  a  feast  on  Yahweh's  bounty,  the  fruits  of  the 
earth,  for  which  the  tribes  stream  (li.  44.  Isa.  ii.  2,  Mic.  iv.  2)  to 
Zion,  like  the  feast  upon  the  tithe,  which  Deuteronomy  had  trans- 
ferred from  the  local  sanctuaries  to  Jerusalem.  This  is  what  the 
parallelism  suggests,  but  the  alternative  view  that  they  stream  from 
Zion  after  their  thanksgiving  to  enjoy  the  bounty  of  Yahweh  in  their 
own  home  suits  much  better  the  enumeration  which  follows.  If 
this  is  the  thought,  it  must  be  owned  that  it  is  obscurely  expressed. 
Duhm  accordingly  suggests  that '  flow  '  is  a  variant  of  'sing,'  which 
he  transfers  from  the  former  part  of  the  line  to  take  its  place,  '  and 
sing  concerning  the  goodness  of  the  Lord.'  Cornill  agrees  that 
'flow'  is  unsuitable,  but  he  retains  the  present  text,  taking  the  word 
to  mean  here  '  to  beam.'  It  occurs  in  Ps.  xxxiv.  5,  '  They  looked 
unto  him,  and  were  lightened,'  and  in  Isa.  Ix.  5.  where  the  A.V. 
rendered  '  flow  together '  as  here,  but  the  R.V.  has  corrected  it  to 
'  be  lightened.'  This  rendering  would  not  be  so  suitable  here  ; 
'  shall  be  radiant  over  '  would  bnng  out  the  sense. 

groodziess :  i.  e.  bounty ;  the  word  has  a  material,  not  a  spiritual 
reference. 


90  JEREMIAH  31.  13-15.     SJ 

to  the  corn,  and  to  the  wine,  and  to  the  oil,  and  to  the 
young  of  the  flock  and  of  the  herd  :  and  their  soul  shall 
be  as  a  watered  garden  ;  and  they  shall  not  sorrow  any 

13  more  at  all.  Then  shall  the  virgin  rejoice  in  the  dance, 
and  the  young  men  and  the  old  together :  for  I  will  turn 
their  mourning  into  joy,  and  will  comfort  them,  and  make 

14  them  rejoice  from  their  sorrow.  And  I  will  satiate  the 
soul  of  the  priests  with  fatness,  and  my  people  shall  be 
satisfied  with  my  goodness,  saith  the  Lord. 

15  [j]  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  A  voice  is  heard  in  Ramah, 

wine  :  i.e.  '  must "  or  '  new  wine,'  see  Driver's  additional  note 
on  Joel  i.  10  {Joel  and  Amos,  pp.  79  fif.).  The  corn,  wine,  and  oil 
are  meHtioned  together  in  Hos.  ii.  8,  22,  and  '  the  increase  of  thy 
kine  and  the  young  of  thy  flock'  are  added  in  Deut.  vii.  13, 
similarly  Deut.  xii.  17. 

their  soul  .  .  .  garden:  of.  Isa.  Iviii.  11  ;  'watered'  should 
rather  be  '  saturated.'  The  metaphor  is  far  more  expressive  in 
the  East,  where  drought  is  so  common.  For  them  the  parched 
wilderness  will  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose  ;  their  life  will  be 
one  of  inward  tranquillity  and  refreshment,  of  outward  prosperity 
and  peace ;  there  will  be  no  retrenchment  of  whatever  is  needed 
to  bring  the  best  fruit  out  of  them,  all  their  desire  will  be  fulfilled. 
[The  reference  to  this  clause  in  vol.  i,  p.  55,  is  due  to  an  oversight 
and  should  be  deleted  ;  the  passage  is  probably  not  Jeremiah's.] 

and  they  ...  at  all  :  cf.  Isa.  li.  11.  The  word  rendered 
'sorrow'  means  'to  languish'  or  'pine.'     Cf.  Deut.  xxviii.  65. 

13.  The  first  clause  of  the  verse  draws  upon  4,  the  second  has 
a  parallel  in  Zech.  viii.  4,  5. 

together:  i.e.  shall  rejoice  together,  but  we  should  probably 
read,  with  the  LXX,  '  shall  be  glad '  instead  of  '  together  ; '  the 
difference  is  merel}'  one  of  pointing.  In  any  case  it  is  simply  the 
virgin  who  is  represented  as  dancing  ;  it  need  hardly  be  said  that 
the  type  of  dancing  familiar  to  modern  readers  is  not  intended. 

14.  The  soul  or  appetite  of  the  priests  is  satiated  (literally 
'  saturated,'  Isa.  xliii.  24,  Ps.  xxxvi.  9)  with  fatness  (Isa.  Iv.  2,  '  let 
your  soul  delight  itself  in  fatness  ').  When  Yahweh's  bounty  had 
satisfied  the  people  with  abundance  of  com  and  wine  and  oil,  of 
flocks  and  herds,  then  their  thank-offerings  would  be  proportion- 
ately abundant,  and  the  priest's  portion  would  be  very  rich. 

15-22.  Here  we  meet  once  more  with  a  genuine  poem  by  Jere- 
miah, in  which  the  qualities  of  his  genius  as  the  poet  of  the  heart 
are    displaj'ed    in    full    measure.       Its   subject    is   the   return    of 


JEREMIAH  31.  15.     J  91 

lamentation,  and  bitter  weeping,  Rachel  weeping  for  her 

Ephraim  ;  like  the  earlier  poenas  in  this  section,  it  seems  to  belong 
to  the  prophet's  first  period,  Delitzsch  considers  it  to  be  the 
prophecy  mentioned  in  xl.  i  as  given  to  Jeremiah  after  Nebuzara- 
dan  '  had  let  him  go  from  Ramah,'  but  not  actually  recorded. 
His  view  is  endorsed  by  Orelli.  But  the  basis  is  altogether  too 
slender,  nothing  can  safely  be  built  on  the  incongruity  of  xl.  i 
with  the  sequel  ;  and  the  reference  to  Ramah  was  probably  not 
occasioned  by  Jeremiah's  presence  there  after  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem.  If  we  could  regard  xxx-xxxi  as  a  prophecy  uttered  by 
Jeremiah  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  the  occasion  suggested  by 
Delitzsch  would  be  better  worth  consideration.  But  at  this  time 
the  prophet's  thoughts  and  emotions  would  be  centred  on  the 
tragedy  which  was  in  progress  rather  than  on  the  long-continued 
exile  of  the  northern  tribes. 

15.  Cf.  iii.  21.  Rachel  is  here  represented  as  weeping  for  the 
children  she  has  lost,  the  northern  tribes  who  have  gone  into  exile. 
It  is  no  mere  poetical  figure  as  a  modem  reader  would  naturally 
regard  it,  but  the  tribal  ancestress  is  stirred  from  her  rest  in  the 
grave  to  wail  for  the  sons  of  whom  she  has  been  bereaved.  The 
shrill  lamentation  is  heard  beyond  the  limits  of  her  tomb  ;  and 
like  her  husband,  when  he  believed  that  Joseph  their  son  was 
dead  (Gen.  xxxvii.  35),  she  refused  to  be  comforted  (cf.  Ps.  Ixxvii. 
2).  Probably  some  natural  phenomenon  had  been  interpreted,  in 
harmony  with  popular  ideas,  of  which  Jeremiah  makes  such 
effective  use,  as  the  bitter  weeping  of  Rachel  for  the  fate  of  her 
children.  The  passage  does  not  indeed  mention  Rachel's  grave, 
and  we  might  think  of  her  as  raising  her  keen  on  the  heights  of 
Ramah  as  she  surveyed  the  desolated  home  of  her  descendants. 
But  the  other  view  is  more  probable.  The  grave  of  Rachel  is  in 
Gen.  XXXV.  16-20.  xlviii.  7,  placed  between  Bethel  and  Ephrath, 
a  little  distance  from  the  latter  place.  Ephrath  is  identified  in 
these  passages  with  Beth-lehem.  This  identification  underlies 
the  application  of  our  passage  to  Herod's  massacre  of  the  children 
in  Beth-lehem,  in  Matt.  ii.  17,  18.  But  it  can  hardly  be  correct. 
The  site  of  Rachel's  grave  is  fixed  by  i  Sam.  x.  2  as  '  in  the  border 
of  Benjamin.'  The  border  intended  is  that  between  Benjamin 
and  Ephraim,  near  Bethel  (i  Sam.  x.  3\  not  that  between  Ben- 
jamin and  Judah.  Bethel  was  ten  miles,  Ramah  five  miles, 
north  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  these  indications  forbid  an  identifica- 
tion of  the  clan-mother's  sepulchre  with  the  traditional  site, 
which  is  four  miles  south  of  Jerusalem  and  one  mile  north  of 
Bethlehem.  Nor  would  it  be  a  natural  situation,  since  Rachel 
had  no  connexion  with  Judah.  It  has  been  held  by  some  eminent 
scholars,  including  Noldeke  and  Dillmann.  that  there  were  two 
traditions  touching  the  site.     It  is,  however,  more  probable  that 


92  JEREMIAH  31.  16-18.     J 

children  ;   she  refuseth  to  be  comforted  for  her  children, 

16  because  they  are  not.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Refrain 
thy  voice  from  weeping,  and  thine  eyes  from  tears  :  for 
thy  work  shall  be  rewarded,  saith  the  Lord  ;  and  they 

17  shall  come  again  from  the  land  of  the  enemy.  And  there 
is  hope  for  thy  latter  end,  saith  the  Lord  ;  and  thy  chil- 

18  dren  shall  come  again  to  their  own  border.  I  have  surely 
heard  Ephraim  bemoaning  himself  thus^  Thou  hast  chas 
tised  me,  and  I  was  chastised,  as  a  calf  unaccustomed  to 
the  yoke  :  turn  thou  me,  and  I  shall  be  turned ;  for  thou 

the  words  'that  is  Beth-lehem'  in  Gen.  xxxv.  15,  xlviii.  7 
are  a  gloss,  occasioned  by  the  fact  that  elsewhere  Ephrath  is 
identified  with  Beth-lehem.  In  that  case  the  Ephrath  mentioned 
in  these  passages  is  a  place  otherwise  unknown. 

16.  To  the  bitter  weeping  of  Rachel  for  the  loss  of  her  children, 
Yahweh  replies  in  words  of  gracious  comfort,  as  to  the  bitter 
weeping  of  her  children  on  account  of  their  sins,  in  iii.  21,  22. 
The  mother  is  assured  that  her  work  will  be  rewarded.  She  has 
toiled  for  her  children,  borne  them  in  sorrow  and  reared  them  with 
untiring  labour;  but  her  pains  have  been  vainly  spent,  for  all  she 
has  lavished  she  has  had  no  return.  A  century  ago  the  death-wail 
had  proclaimed  the  blighting  of  all  her  hopes,  and  still  the  sound 
of  her  lamentation  is  to  be  heard  in  Ramah.  And  now  Yahweh 
bids  her  cease  from  her  sorrow  ;  there  will  be  a  reward  for  her 
labour,  the  children  of  whom  she  thought  herself  irretrievably 
bereaved  will  come  back  once  more,  to  brighten  the  eyes  so  long 
dimmed  by  tears. 

17.  This  is  regarded  by  several  scholars  as  a  variant  of  16'',  but 
opinion  is  divided  on  the  question  which  is  the  original.  The  fact 
that  the  LXX  gives  a  much  shorter  text  in  17  may  be  variously 
interpreted,  and  it  would  be  precarious  to  infer  on  this  ground  that 
17  is  a  later  addition.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  we  have 
variants  before  us,  but  if  so,  it  would  be  better  to  sacrifice  17  than 
the  more  distinctive  and  powerful  I6^ 

18.  While  the  mother  weeps  for  her  bereavement,  the  children 
bemoan  themselves  for  their  sin.  Ephraim  confesses  that  his 
chastisement  had  been  deserved.  He  had  acted  like  a  calf  which 
had  not  been  broken  in,  undisciplined  and  self-willed.  He  has 
found  it  hard  to  kick  against  the  goad,  and  punishment  has  taught 
him  the  wisdom  and  blessedness  of  obedience. 

turn  ...  be  turned.    This  rendering  suggests  that  '  turn '  is 
used  in  its  spiritual  sense.     It  would  be  better  to  substitute  *  I  will 


JEREMIAH  31.  19.     J  93 

art  the  Lord  my  God.     Surely  after  that  I  was  turned,  19 

turn  '  for  *  I  shall  be  turned,'  since  to  the  modern  reader  the  latter 
rendering  implies  that  the  verb  is  passive,  whereas  in  older  English 
it  was  used  in  a  neuter  sense  (see  Driver,  p.  366).  The  meaning  is 
then  that  if  Yahweh  will  take  the  initiative  in  turning  the  heart  of 
Ephraim  towards  Him,  Ephraim  will  on  his  part  accept  the  Divine 
leading  and  turn  to  his  God  with  all  his  heart.  In  itself  this  gives 
an  admirable  sense,  for  in  all  conversion  there  is  the  Divine  initia- 
tive met  by  the  human  response.  But  we  seem  to  have  passed 
beyond  this  stage  here  ;  Ephraim  has  already  experienced  the 
Divine  attraction  and  responded  to  it.  Accordingly  it  is  better  to 
translate  '  bring  me  back,  and  I  will  return,'  i.e.  bring  me  back  to 
my  own  land  (cf.  iv.  i). 

19.  Surely  .  .  .  repented:  a  difficult  clause.  If  the  sense  of  18 
is  correctly  given  in  R.V.,  the  obvious  meaning  of  this  clause  is 
that  Ephraim's  repentance  followed  his  return  to  God.  It  is  no 
doubt  true  that  as  the  religious  life  deepens,  repentance  for  the  sinful 
past  also  grows  deeper,  since  with  widening  and  purer  vision  the 
sense  of  the  guilt  and  heinousness  of  sin  increases.  But  it  would 
be  inappropriate  to  import  such  a  consideration  here.  The  repen- 
tance is  the  first  sorrow  for  sin  which  precedes  the  return  to  God. 
Obviously  the  meaning  cannot  be  either  that  Ephraim  repents  after 
his  restoration  to  Palestine.  Accordingly  the  text  can  only  be 
rendered,  as  several  scholars  take  it,  'after  I  turned  [from  thee]  I 
repented.'  This  implies  a  double  sense  of  the  word  '  turn '  in  the 
same  context.  For  this  viii.  4,  iii.  12,  14,  22  are  quoted.  In  each 
of  these  cases,  however,  the  sense  could  hardly  be  misunderstood, 
whereas  here  '  after  I  turned  '  takes  up  *  I  will  turn '  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  and  irresistibly  suggests  the  same  sense.  Accord- 
ingly the  text  is  suspicious.  The  LXX  reads  '  after  my  captivity,' 
which  involves  little  change  in  the  Hebrew.  The  sense  is  more 
satisfactory  than  the  expression  ;  Duhm  accepts  the  reading,  but 
regards  it  as  a  marginal  gloss,  and  changes  *  instructed '  into 
'chastised,'  reading  'Surely  I  repented  after  I  was  chastised,  I 
smote  upon  my  thigh.'  This  gives  a  smoother  text,  but  the 
reason  for  the  insertion  of  such  a  gloss  is  far  from  clear.  Giese- 
brecht  prefers  the  Hebrew  to  the  LXX  and  retains  '  instructed,' 
but  agrees  with  Duhm  in  striking  out  the  words  in  question  as  a 
gloss.  Cornill  retains  the  words  with  a  slight  correction,  and 
connects  with  the  closing  words  of  i8,  but  he  expunges  '  after  that 
I  was  instructed,'  which  he  regards  as  philologically  dubious.  He 
renders- '  For  thou  art  Yahweh  my  God,  and  to  thee  do  I  turn.  I 
repent  and  smite,'  &c.  He  thus  gets  rid  of  what  he  feels  to  be  the 
main  objection,  the  repetition  of  'for'  (disguised  in  R.V.  by  the 
rendering  of  the  second  by  '  Surely  ')  which  gives  two  reasons  for 
'  I  will  turn.' 


94  JEREMIAH  31.  20.     J 

I  repented;  and  after  that  I  wa?  instructed,  I  smote 
upon  my  thigh :  I  was  ashamed,  yea,  even  confounded, 
.0  because  I  did  bear  the  reproach  of  my  youth.  Is  Ephra- 
im  my  dear  son  ?  is  he  a  pleasant  child  ?  for  as  often  as 
I  speak  against  him,  I  do  earnestly  remember  him  still : 
therefore  my  bowels  *  are  troubled  for  him  ;  I  will  surely 
have  mercy  upon  him,  saith  the  Lord. 

'^  Heb.  sound 


smote  upon  my  thigh.  This  gesture  was  a  sign  of  the 
uttermost  grief,  as  we  learn  from  Ezek.  xxi.  12.  Our  equivalent, 
as  Cornill  says,  would  be  *I  smote  upon  my  breast.' 

the  reproach  of  my  youth.  According  to  usage  this  should 
mean  that  Ephraim's  youth  was  an  occasion  of  reproach.  But  in 
this  context  it  must  mean  the  reproach  for  the  sins  of  his  youth, 
Duhm  reads  simply  '  I  did  bear  reproach,'  i.e.  of  exile  ;  he  thinks 
that 'of  my  youth  '  is  the  corruption  of  a  gloss  meaning  *  on 
account  of  my  guilt.'     Cornill  deletes  the  whole  clause. 

20.  In  this  beautiful  soliloquy  of  Yahweh,  the  prophet  does  not 
shrink  from  the  boldest  anthropomorphism.  Whenever  the  name 
of  Ephraim  passes  His  lips  the  tender  memory  revives  in  His 
heart.  True,  it  is  with  horror  and  with  threatening  that  He  must 
speak  of  his  conduct,  yet  the  mention  of  his  name  even  in  anger 
revives  all  the  ancient  love.  Moved  to  amazement  by  the  paradox 
of  His  conflicting  emotions,  He  asks  Himself  the  reason.  Is  it 
because  Ephraim  is  His  darling  child  that,  in  spite  of  all  his  in- 
gratitude and  disobedience,  the  old  affection  surges  up  irrepressibiy 
at  every  mention  of  his  name  ? 

speak  against  him  :  better  '  speak  of  him.'  The  rendering  in 
the  text  is  adopted  by  several  scholars,  but  although  the  speaking 
was  normally  of  this  character,  the  translation  *  against '  unduly 
narrows  the  thought.  It  is  not  simply  the  formal  denunciation 
that  is  intended  ;  the  most  casual  utterance  of  the  name  brings  all 
the  happy  memories  back.  Giesebrecht  reads  '  am  angry  with 
him,'  but  the  present  text  gives  a  wholly  satisfying  sense. 

earnestly  remember.  The  meaning  is  not  that  whenever  the 
name  of  Ephraim  is  uttered,  Yahweh  remembers  him  for  good, 
and  resolves  on  his  restoration,  but  that  the  old  happiness  of  their 
relations  forces  itself  on  His  attention. 

therefore  .  .  .  upon  him.  Since  Yahweh  has  not  been  able 
to  dislodge  the  love  for  Ephraim  from  His  heart,  or  consign  the 
ancient  relationship  to  oblivion,  the  affection  which  yearns  over 
His  prodigal  son  must  be  satisfied  by  his  restoration  to  His  favour. 


JEREMIAH  31.  21,  22.     J  95 

Set  thee  up  waymarks,  make  thee   guide-posts :    set  2 1 
thine  heart  toward  the  high  way,  even  the  way  by  which 
thou  wentest :   turn  again,  O  virgin  of  Israel,  turn  again 
to  these  thy  cities.     How  long  wilt  thou  go  hither  and  22 
thither,  O  thou  backsliding  daughter  ?  for  the  Lord  hath 

21.  Set  thee  .  .  .  gfuide-posts.  The  injunction  is  strange.  As 
Ciieyne  says  :  '  Surely  the  setting  up  of  guide-posts  belongs  not 
to  the  travellers,  but  to  friendly  persons  who  prepare  the  way  for 
them'  (Cfitica  Biblica,  p.  70).  The  word  rendered  'guide-posts' 
occurs  here  only,  if  the  reading  is  correct,  since  elsewhere  the 
same  form  means  'bitterness'  (as  in  15,  'weeping  of  bitterness '), 
and  that  is  unsuitable  here.  The  sense  required  by  the  parallelism 
is  'sign-posts,'  and  we  may  either  assign  this  meaning  to  it,  or, 
following  the  LXX,  which  seems  to  give  a  transliteration  rather 
than  a  translation,  read  thnmonm.  This  word  means  '  palm- 
trees,'  but  since  a  cognate  word  is  used  in  x.  5  in  the  sense  '  pillar ' 
(so  R.V.  marg.,  see  note),  a  similar  sense  is  assumed  here.  The 
erection  of  waymarks  is  often  interpreted  as  designed  to  save 
stragglers,  who  may  have  strayed  from  the  main  body,  from  getting 
lost.  Duhm  thinks  Israel  is  bidden  set  up  the  waymarks  in  spirit ; 
remembering  the  path  by  which  she  had  come  into  exile,  she 
should  in  thought  erect  the  sign-posts  to  guide  her  return.  But 
this,  though  favoured  by  the  following  clause,  is  rather  artificial, 
and  the  more  usual  interpretation  is  precarious.  For  'waymarks* 
Rothstein  (in  Kittel's  Biblia  Hehraica)  prefers  'watchmen' 
{isdphtm\  and  is  very  dubious  about  the  suggested  emendation  of 
the  parallel  term,  though  he  accepts  it  in  Kautzsch's  translation. 
It  is  perhaps  best  to  acquiesce  in  the  usual  view  as  to  the  general 
drift  of  the  passage  without  placing  any  undue  confidence  in  the 
correctness  of  the  text. 

set  thine  heart  .  .  .  wentest.  Let  Israel  turn  her  thoughts 
again  to  the  road,  by  which  she  had  travelled  the  bitter  road  to 
exile  ;  now  she  may  think  on  it  with  delight,  for  it  is  the  way 
which  will  lead  her  home. 

these  thy  cities.     The  writer  is  obviously  in  Palestine. 

22.  To  the  exhortation  in  the  preceding  verse,  the  prophet 
adds  what  is  at  once  remonstrance  and  appeal.  How  long  will 
Israel  hesitate  to  believe  and  act  upon  the  gracious  promise  ?  She 
flutters  hither  and  thither  in  her  indecision,  let  her  strike  out 
a  clear  undistracted  course !  In  such  a  passage  the  epithet  'back- 
sliding '  strikes  a  jarring  note.  The  LXX  reads  '  dishonoured  ; ' 
the  best  correction  is  Cornill's  '  despoiled  '  {Jiashshedudah)  which 
involves  the  change  of  two  consonants. 

for  the  LOBD  ...  a  man.    This  passage  is  very  difficult  and 


96  JEREMIAH  31.  22.     J 

created  a  new  thing  in  the  earth,  A  woman  shall  encom- 
pass a  man. 

has  occasioned  much  discussion.  It  must  describe  something 
wholly  out  of  the  ordinary  course,  something  unprecedented  in 
nature  or  human  experience  (cf.  Isa.  xliii.  19,  Num.  xvi.  30).  If 
the  expression  is  borrowed  from  a  popular  proverb,  as  is 
commonly  supposed,  the  point  will  be  that  Yahweh  will  bring  the 
proverbially  impossible  to  pass.  Many  think  the  meaning  is  '  A 
woman  shall  protect  a  man,'  and  this  is  itself  variously  explained  : 
Israel  shall  protect  Yahweh,  i.  e.  His  Temple  in  which  He  dwells  ; 
or  the  Messiah  is  protected  by  his  mother ;  or  less  obviously 
unlikely,  the  land  will  be  so  peaceful  that  the  woman  will  no 
longer  need  protection  from  the  man,  but  will  be  able  to  accord  it 
to  him,  but  in  such  happy  conditions  what  protection  does  the 
man  need?  Others  take  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  woman  will 
cling  about  the  man  ;  Israel  will  no  longer  hold  Yahweh  at 
a  distance,  but  seek  Him  and  cleave  to  Him.  The  new  thing  is 
that  the  woman  woos  the  man,  inverting  the  normal  relationship. 
But  this  does  not  well  harmonize  with  the  fact  that  it  is  Yahweh 
who  takes  the  initiative  and  creates  a  new  thing.  Nor  does  this 
any  more  than  the  previous  rendering  justify  the  description  with 
which  the  clause  is  introduced.  Such  an  unparalleled  event  as 
this  demands  seems  to  be  expressed  by  Ewald's  translation, 
*A  woman  shall  be  turned  into  a  man.'  This  is  somewhat 
precarious  as  a  rendering  of  the  present  text,  but  Duhm  by 
a  trifling  emendation  has  removed  this  objection.  He  takes  it, 
however,  as  a  witty  gloss  by  a  reader,  who  on  account  of  the 
language  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  post-exilic  period.  The  point  of 
the  annotation  is,  he  thinks,  that  Israel,  which  had  been  spoken  of 
earlier  in  the  passage  as  a  male,  is  now  represented  as  a  female. 
But,  as  Cornill  points  out,  this  would  be  more  than  a  trivial 
witticism ;  introduced  with  the  statement  that  Yahweh  was 
creating  a  new  thing,  it  would  be  a  piece  of  blasphemy.  Besides, 
such  changes  of  representation  are  too  common  in  Hebrew  poetry 
for  such  a  gloss  to  have  any  point.  If  this  translation  is  right,  the 
point  must  be  that  Israel,  the  weak,  timid,  irresolute  woman  (of 
course  it  is  an  Oriental  who  is  writing),  will  be  turned  into 
a  strong  brave  man.  If  the  Hebrew  text  is  retained  in  its  present 
or  in  Duhm's  sHghtly  emended  form,  this  seems  to  be  the  best 
interpretation.  Only  it  may  be  questioned  whether  it  is  really 
satisfactory.  For  while  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  taken  in  its 
literal  sense,  would  be  unprecedented  indeed,  this  would  not  be 
so  in  the  metaphorical  sense  here  intended.  Accordingly  a 
question  arises  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  text.  The  LXX  reads 
*  men  shall  go  about  in  safety,'  but  so  tame  a  promise  is  not  so 


JEREMIAH  31.  27,  24.     S  97 

[S]  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts, the  God  of  Israel:  Yet  23 
again  shall  they  use  this  speech  in  the  land  of  Judah  and 
in  the  cities  thereof,  when  I  shall  ^  bring  again  their  cap- 
tivity :  The  Lord  bless  thee,  O  habitation  of  justice,  O 
mountain  of  holiness.     And  Judah  and  all  the  cities  34 
*  Or,  return  to 

good  as  the  Hebrew,  nor  is  the  emendation  of  the  Hebrew  based 
upon  it  by  Schmidt  {Enc,  Bib.  2384)  acceptable.  Something  of 
a  more  portentous  character  would  be  expected.  In  the  parallel 
passage  which  speaks  of  Yahweh  as  doing  a  new  thing  (Isa.  xliii. 
19),  it  is  the  transformation  of  nature  involved  in  making  'a  way 
in  the  wilderness,  and  rivers  in  the  desert.'  The  most  satisfying 
sense,  as  Cheyne  has  seen  {Critica  Biblica,  pp.  70,  71),  would  be 
yielded  by  a  text  which  similarly  assured  the  captives  that  Yahweh 
would  miraculously  remove  the  physical  obstacles  to  their  return. 
His  emendation,  however,  '  the  Negeb  shall  change  as  (into)  the 
Arabah  '  (cf.  Zech.  xiv.  10),  while  closer  to  the  traditional  text  than 
many  of  his  conjectures,  is  nevertheless  a  good  deal  removed  from 
it,  and  depends  on  his  North  Arabian  theory.  The  present  writer 
has  no  suggestion  to  make  which  he  can  regard  as  satisfactory, 
and  must  content  himself  with  pointing  out  the  difficulties  which 
attach  to  other  solutions. 

23-26.  To  the  prediction  ofEphraim's  restoration  a  prediction 
of  Judah's  similar  restoration  is  appended.  Probably  this  is  not 
the  work  of  Jeremiah,  but  belongs  to  the  author  of  xxx,  xxxi.  It 
apparently  presupposes  the  downfall  of  the  Southern  Kingdom  ; 
the  reference  to  Jerusalem  as  the  '  mountain  of  holiness '  is  not 
what  we  expect  from  Jeremiah,  though  the  prophet  does  not 
describe  it  thus  himself,  but  simply  says  that  others  will  so 
designate  it ;  and  the  points  of  contact  with  12-14  suggest  that 
the  same  view  should  be  taken  of  both  passages. 

23.  Yet  again:  implying  that  at  the  time  this  was  written  such 
speech  could  not  be  used,  since  the  land  was  a  desolation  and  the 
Temple  a  ruin. 

bringf  ag-ain  their  captivity :  see  note  on  xxix.  14. 

habitation  of  justice:  the  land  of  Judah  or  the  capital  is  an 
abode  in  which  righteousness  dwells.  '  Habitation '  is  literally 
'homestead.' 

mountain  of  holiness.  The  holy  mountain  may  be  cither  the 
mountain  land  of  Judah,  or  Jerusalem,  or  simply  the  Temple  hill. 
The  last  is  perhaps  the  most  probable.  For  the  whole  verse  cf. 
Zech.  viii.  3. 

24.  The  inhabitants  of  Judah  will  be  able  to  practise  the 
agricultural  and  pastoral  life  without  any  fear  of  the  spoiler. 

II  H 


98  JEREMIAH  31.  25-27.     S 

thereof  shall  dwell  therein  together ;  the  husbandmen, 

25  and  they  that  go  about  with  flocks.     For  I  have  satiated 
the  weary  soul,  and  every  sorrowful  soul  have  I  replen- 

26  ished.    Upon  this  I  awaked,  and  beheld ;   and  my  sleep 

27  was  sweet  unto  me.     Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the 

25.  In  this  lovely  verse  the  promises  of  12  and  14  are  recalled. 
The  weary  soul  is  refreshed,  the  pining  (see  note  on  12)  soul 
replenished. 

26.  This  is  a  difficult  verse.  The  views,  which  have  found 
favour  with  many  commentators,  that  either  God  or  the  people  is 
represented  as  speaking  seem  to  be  universally  abandoned.  The 
author  of  the  verse  is  referring  to  himself.  Often  the  verse  has 
been  explained  that  when  the  prophet  awoke  from  the  sleep  in 
which  the  foregoing  revelation  had  been  communicated  to  him,  his 
dream  seemed  sweet  to  him  as  he  looked  back  upon  it.  Such 
a  statement  could  not  well  have  come  from  Jeremiah,  who  did  not 
recognize  that  God  revealed  Himself  in  dreams.  But  the  words 
*  and  beheld'  are  not  easy  to  harmonize  with  this  interpretation. 
The  '  sleep '  or  prophetic  ecstasy  is  the  condition  to  which  vision 
in  the  fuller  sense  belongs,  but  here  the  prophet  speaks  as  if  with 
his  awakening  true  vision  returned.  We  can  hardly  escape  the 
conclusion  then  that  the  writer  is  contrasting  the  dream  with  the 
stern  realities  of  actual  life.  He  means  that  when  he  returns  to 
the  hard  facts,  when  the  glow  dies  down  and,  as  we  put  it,  reason 
resumes  its  sway,  the  gorgeous  fancies  of  the  night  pale  in  the 
cold  light  of  day.  Plainly  it  is  not  the  prophet  himselfwho  utters 
this  confession  of  disillusion.  It  is  one  of  his  readers,  who,  not 
necessarily  in  a  mocking  mood  as  Duhm  believes,  but  rather  with 
the  deep  yearning  that  would  fain  hope  against  hope,  confesses 
how  attractive  the  prospect  is,  but  how  unlikely  of  realization. 
Cornill  thinks  that  the  verse  stood  originally  after  22,  and  that 
'  the  isolated  couplet '  25  should  be  struck  out.  Our  verse  would 
then  refer  to  the  prophecy  of  Ephraim's  return  in  1-22.  He  is 
inclined  to  think  that  its  present  position  is  due  not  to  its  original 
connexion  with  23  ff.,  which  would  have  been  too  slight  for  such 
a  conclusion,  but  to  the  interpretation  of  these  verses  as  standing 
in  close  connexion  with  22  and  the  words  of  blessing  on  Jerusalem 
in  23  as  spoken  by  the  returned  Ephraimites.  A  reader  who  was 
familiar  with  the  hatred  of  Jew  and  Samaritan  in  the  later  period 
might  well  regard  such  anticipations  of  friendly  relations  as 
altogether  too  good  to  be  true. 

27-30.  This  passage  raises  critical  difficulties.  It  falls  into 
two  parts  (a)  27,  28,  fb)  29,  30.  The  former  may  conceivably 
come  from  Jeremiah,  though  its  connexion  with  24  does  not  favour 


JEREMIAH  31.  28.     S  99 

Lord,  that  I  will  sow  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of 
Judah  with  the  seed  of  man,  and  with  the  seed  of  beast. 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  like  as  I  have  watched  28 


this,  and  it  is  written  rather  from  the  standpoint  of  the  author  of 
XXX,  xxxi,  dwelling  on  the  union  of  Israel  and  Judah.  The  latter 
it  is  not  easy  to  connect  with  Jeremiah.  It  is  true  that  the  proverb 
quoted  was  current  among  the  people  at  this  time,  since  the  use 
of  it  is  attacked  by  Ezekiel  (xviii.  2,  3\  But  Ezekiel  repudiates 
it  as  intrinsically  false,  and  devotes  a  lengthy  refutation  to  it ;  the 
writer  of  our  passage  seems  to  regard  it  as  justifiable  under  the 
present  conditions,  but  as  inapplicable  and  uncalled  for  in  the 
bright  future  to  which  he  looks  forward.  Such  a  judgement  we 
cannot  easily  reconcile  with  what  we  know  of  Jeremiah,  a  man 
who  would  have  seen  as  clearly  and  felt  as  strongly  as  Ezekiel  the 
essential  injustice  of  a  moral  government  which  could  be  justly 
described  in  such  a  proverb. 

27.  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  LOBD.  This  formula, 
which  we  have  met  with  previously  in  this  section  (xxx.  3),  occurs 
with  unusual  frequency  in  this  context  (27,  31,  38).  In  three  of 
these  passages  it  introduces  what  is  probably  a  non-Jeremianic 
oracle.  But  we  ought  not  to  permit  this  to  prejudice  us  against 
the  Jeremianic  origin  of  the  prophecy  of  the  New  Covenant. 

I  will  sow  .  .  .  beast.  The  land  of  Palestine  is  at  present 
thinly  peopled.  But  Yahweh  will  break  up  His  fallow  ground 
and  plant  it  with  seed  of  man  and  beast,  so  that  both  may  abound. 
The  metaphor  recalls  Ezek.  xxxvi.  9-1 1,  Hos.  ii.  23,  though  the 
point  in  the  latter  passage  is  different.  Long  after  the  return 
from  captivity  the  complaint  was  made  of  the  sparse  population  of 
the  country,  as  we  learn  from  the  very  striking  passage  Isa.  xxvi. 
16-19,  which  probably  belongs  to  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth 
century  b.  c.  In  that  passage  the  --peopling  of  the  depleted  land 
is  anticipated  through  a  resurrection  of  pious  Israelites.  On  those 
bodies  buried  in  the  earth  the  life-giving  dew  of  God  will  descend, 
and  they  will  come  forth  from  the  ground  as  the  buried  seed 
awakens  to  life  and  comes  forth  under  the  same  quickening 
influence.  Thus  the  old  promises  of  innumerable  posterity  made 
to  the  patriarchs  and  repeated  in  Hos.  i.  10,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  9-1 1  will 
be  fulfilled. 

the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah.  The  LXX 
reads  simply  *  Israel  and  Judah.'  The  point  of  the  passage  is 
that  Israel  and  Judah,  whose  future  blessedness  has  been  separately 
described  in  the  previous  part  of  the  prophecy,  are  now  united  :  cf. 
iii.  iS,  1.  4;  Isa.  xi.  ir-14  ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  15-24  ;  Hos.  i.  11. 

28.  This  verse    is  obviously  intended  to  recall    the  terms  of 

H  2 


100  JEREMIAH  31.  29.     S 

over  them  to  pluck  up  and  to  break  down,  and  to  over- 
throw and  to  destroy,  and  to  afflict ;  so  will  I  watch  over 
29  them  to  build  and  to  plant,  saith  the  Lord.     In  those 

Jeremiah's  commission  (i.  10)  and  his  vision  of  the  almond  tree 
(i.  II,  12). 

29.  The  popular  proverb  here  quoted  was  current  in  the  dark 
days  of  Judah's  tragedy,  as  we  learn  from  Ezek.  xviii.  2,  and  the 
sentiment  to  which  it  gives  such  pungent  expression  is  found  in 
Lam.  V.  7.  It  represents  an  antagonism  to  the  ancient  doctrine  of 
solidarity,  which  had  long  been  unchallenged  in  theory  and  carried 
out  in  practice.  This  doctrine  had  affirmed  the  mutual  responsibility 
of  the  members  of  the  group  which  formed  its  social  unit.  The 
individual  had  but  little  independent  significance.  If  a  man  killed 
one  who  belonged  to  another  clan,  the  individual  aspect  of  the 
case  was  unimportant  in  comparison  with  the  collective.  The 
vital  fact  was  that  one  clan  had  shed  the  blood  of  another  clan, 
and  the  vengeance  was  directed  not  so  much  at  the  actual  offender 
as  at  his  clan  as  a  whole.  If  a  man  broke  the  law  or  violated 
some  taboo,  then  it  was  considered  quite  just  that  his  family  should 
suffer  with  him  in  expiation  of  his  transgression.  Achan's  sons 
and  daughters,  and  even  his  possessions,  were  stoned  and  burned 
along  with  the  culprit  himself  (Joshua  vii.  24,  25).  The  whole  city 
of  Nob  was  smitten  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  'men  and  women, 
children  and  sucklings,  and  oxen  and  asses,'  because  Ahimelech 
the  priest  had  helped  David  (i  Sam.  xxii.  16-19).  Saul's  own 
children  and  grandchildren  were  hanged  up  before  Yahweh  to 
remove  a  famine  caused  by  Saul's  slaughter  of  the  Gibeonites  in 
violation  of  Joshua's  oath  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1-9).  With  the  develop- 
ment of  the  social  and  political  organization  and  the  break-up  of 
the  older  clan  system,  the  cru6l  injustice  of  such  treatment  was 
more  and  more  recognized.  A  noteworthy  advance  was  made 
when  Amaziah  slew  the  conspirators  who  had  slain  his  father,  but 
spared  their  children  (2  Kings  xiv.  5,  6).  The  Deuteronomic 
Code  explicitly  enjoined  that  the  fathers  should  not  be  put  to  death 
for  the  children  or  the  children  for  the  fathers,  but  every  man  for 
his  own  sin  (Deut.  xxiv.  16).  And  if  conscience  revolted  in  the 
sphere  of  the  relations  between  man  and  man,  it  was  natural  that 
it  should  do  so  in  that  of  the  relations  between  man  and  God.  It 
had  seemed  to  an  earlier  age  quite  unexceptionable  that  God  should 
visit  the  sins  of  the  fathers  on  the  children  to  the  third  and  fourth 
generation.  And  still  with  bitter  indignation  it  was  urged  that  sc 
in  fact  He  acted.  The  very  form  in  which  the  protest  was  ex- 
pressed, reveals  how  deep  the  people  felt  the  injustice  to  be. 
Their  ancestors  had  sinned,  no  doubt,  but  what  had  their  trans- 
gression been  ?    It  was  as  if  a  man  had  eaten  sour  grapes.     In  thi.- 


JEREMIAH  31.  30,  31.     SJ  loi 

days  they  shall  say  no  more,  The  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are.  set  on  edge.     But  30 
every  one  shall  die  for  his  own  iniquity :  every  man  that 
eateth  the  sour  grapes,  his  teeth  shall  be  set  on  edge, 
[j]  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  31 

course  of  nature  the  effect  of  this  would  not  simply  be  confined  to 
the  man  himself,  but  it  would  be  of  the  most  transient  character, 
and  would  leave  no  permanent  mark  behind  it.  Such  had  been 
the  intrinsic  quality  of  the  fathers'  sin  as  their  children  judged  it. 
But  in  the  moral  government  of  God  how  unnatural  liad  His  treat- 
ment of  the  transgression  been  !  The  penalty  had  been  transferred 
from  ancestors  to  descendants,  from  the  guilty  to  the  innocent. 
And  it  was  a  penalty  for  a  transgression  of  so  trivial  a  character, 
which  had  properly  no  serious  consequences  and  did  no  perma'n- 
ent  moral  damage.  Thus  they  criticized  God  for  undue  interference 
with  the  chain  of  cause  and  effect ;  He  had  diverted  the  punishment 
from  the  guilty  to  the  innocent,  and  He  had  treated  the  offence 
as  far  more  grave  than  it  was  in  reality.  This  criticism  Ezekiel 
f.et  himself  to  meet.  He  does  not  attempt  to  vindicate  the  truth 
of  the  traditional  view,  he  affirms  in  the  most  uncompromising 
form  the  doctrine  of  individual  responsibility.  '  The  soul  that 
sinneth,  it  shall  die,'  it  and  no  other.  While  he  fully  agrees  that 
merit  and  guilt,  reward  and  punishment,  should  not  be  transfer- 
able, he  repudiates  the  charge  that  the  ways  of  Yahweh  had  been 
unequal.  The  proverb  was  false  in  point  of  fact ;  his  own  genera- 
tion was  not  suffering  from  the  entail  of  ancestral  guilt,  but  reaping 
the  harvest  of  its  own  transgression  ;  moreover  it  rusted  on  an 
'*'"*^  "ate  of  sin  which  was  altogether  too  light-hearted.  The  extreme 
Y'« '»'>^^'^^,'in  which  Ezekiel  stated  his  position  needed  modification: 
there  was  a  real  problem,  which  in  his  zeal  for  God's  honour  he 
refused  to  see.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  present  passage  differs 
from  Ezekiel's  discussion,  in  that  it  seems  to  recognize  that  the 
proverb  has  had  and  still  has  its  justification,  but  that  in  the  happy 
future  retribution  will  follow  the  lines  of  strict  justice. 
set  on  edge :  literally  blunted, 

30.  his  own  iniquity.  In  this  period  there  may  still  be  sin  of 
such  a  character  as  to  merit  death. 

31-34.  We  now  reach  the  great  prophecy  of  the  New  Coven- 
ant. Its  Jeremianic  origin  was  questioned  by  Movers,  who 
attributed  it  to  the  Second  Isaiah.  As  already  mentioned  (p.  68), 
Stade  was  the  ■Irst  to  reject  the  authenticity  ofxxx,  xxxi,  including 
this  prophecy,  but  without  assigning  reasons  ;  while  Smend,  who 
did  assign  leasons  for  the  rejection  of  the  whole,  did  not  go  into 
the  question  of  this  passage  at  any  length,  and  so  far  as  he  did 


I02  JEREMIAH  31.  31.     J 

make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with 


so  was  answered  by  Giesebrecht  in  the  first  edition  of  his  com- 
mentary. In  his  article  'Covenant'  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Bihlica^ 
Schmidt  relegated  the  whole  section  to  the  period  of  the  Graeco- 
Persian  War,  but  neither  in  this  article  nor  in  those  on  'Jeremiah ' 
did  he  give  any  adequate  proof  of  this  position,  but  contented 
himself  with  a  reference  to  Smend's  discussion.  A  very  search- 
ing investigation  was  devoted  to  the  question  by  Duhm.  He  was 
driven  from  the  acceptance  of  the  authenticity  only  with  great 
reluctance.  Not  unnaturally  the  surrender  of  it  involved  a  much 
lower  estimate  of  its  value.  The  same  phrases  bear  different 
meanings  on  different  lips.  What  a  later  scribe,  zealous  for  the 
Law,  intended  by  this  oracle  seemed  to  him  something  far  inferior 
to  what  Jeremiah  would  have  meant  by  it ;  the  criticism  thus 
controls  to  some  extent  the  exegesis,  and  the  result  is  to  belittle 
the  passage.  Instead  of  the  splendid  climax  of  Jeremiah's  teach- 
ing, epoch-making  as  scarcely  any  other  pre-Christian  conception, 
we  had  the  dwarfed  ideal  of  a  post-exilic  legalist,  devoid  alike  of 
originality  and  historical  significance.  It  is  among  the  chief 
•  merits  of  Cornill's  commentary  that  it  contains  a  brilliant  refuta- 
tion of  Duhm's  arguments,  which  it  is  to  be  hoped  may  prove  a  final 
vindication  of  the  authenticity.  No  student  of  Jeremiah  to  whom 
it  is  accessible  should  fail  to  read  this  masterly  argument.  An 
article  by  Prof.  W.  J.  Moulton  in  the  Expositor  for  April,  1906, 
should  also  be  mentioned.  Marti  firmly  maintains  the  Jeremianic 
origin  in  the  last  edition  (1907)  of  his  History  of  the  Religion  of 
Israel.  Prof.  Cheyne  has  now  definitely  assigned  the  passage 
to  a  supplementer  {The  Tivo  Religions  of  Israel,  pp.  60,  61). 
Duhm  says  that  if  genuine  the  passage  would  be  very  impc-un  b' 
since  it  would  express  the  antithesis  between  the  prophet?  ,,,J 
Deuteronomic  conception  of  religion.  But  this  passage  ^<,^  not, 
he  proceeds,  contain  such  a  contrast  ;  it  promises  a  new  *  coven- 
ant '  but  not  a  new  '  law,'  only  an  inward  conformity  of  the  people 
with  the  Law  ;  and  it  puts  the  stress  on  the  good  results  which 
this  will  have  for  the  people,  but  betrays  no  need  for  a  higher  kind 
of  religion.  If  one  is  not  dazzled  by  the  expressions  '  new 
covenant,'  'write  on  the  heart,'  the  passage  says  no  more  about 
the  individual  than  what  Deuteronomy  already  regarded  as  possible 
(xxx.  II  ff.)  and  desirable  (vi.  6-8),  that  each  should  be  familiar  with 
the  Law  and  loyally  obey  it.  A  still  greater  objection  is  the  bad, 
cumbersome,  slipshod  style,  the  prominence  of  such  phraseology 
as  is  dear  to  the  supplementers,  the  complete  abse.nce  of  original 
figures  of  speech,  which  are  to  be  found  even  in  the  sr.ortest  poems 
of  Jeremiah.  The  other  criticisms  made  by  Duhm  are  best  dis- 
cussed as  they  arise  in  the  detailed  interpretation  of  the  passage, 


JEREMIAH  31.  32.     J  103 

the  house  of  Judah  :  not  according  to  the  covenant  that  3^ 

but  it  is  desirable  to  examine  at  this  point  those  which  have  just 
been  mentioned. 

The  present  writer  has  argued  (vol.  i,  pp.  12-14)  that  the  oppo- 
sition to   Deuteronomy  felt   by  Jeremiah   was  by  no  means  so 
fundamental  as  several  scholars,  including  both  Duhmand  Cornill, 
have  asserted.     But  leaving  this  question  aside,  the  Old  Covenant 
was  for  Jeremiah  that  made  by  God  with  Israel  at  Sinai.     And 
this,  as    Cornill  has  shown,   had    for   its    content  and  basis  the 
Decalogue.     This  is  clear  from  the  description  given  in  Jer.  vii. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  present  passage,  where  there  is  a  clear^ 
contrast  between  the  law  written  with  God's  finger  on  the  tables} 
of  stone  and  the  law  written  by  God  in  the  heart.     DeuteronomyJ" 
accordingly  does  not  come  into  consideration  at  all ;  and  the  need 
for  a  new  law  to  supersede  the  Decalogue  would  not  have  been 
felt  by  Jeremiah.    The  New  Covenant  is  new  not  in  the  sense  that") 

J'  it  introduces  a  new  moral  and  religious  code,  but  that  it  confers  ' 
a  new  and  inward  power  of  fulfilling  the  code  already  given.  The 
Law  ceases  to  be  a  standard  external  to  the  individual,  it  has 
jbecome  an  integral  part  of  his  personality.  The  second  objection 
is  not  without  force.  But  the  oracle  may  have  been  touched  by 
supplementers,  as  so  much  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies,  and  the  form 
in  which  it  was  first  written  down  may  have  been  due  to  Baruch. 
Even  so  not  the  substance  alone,  which  is  the  vital  matter,  but  also 
the  form  is  largely  Jeremianic.  The  vagueness,  of  which  Duhm 
complains,  disappears  when  the  passage  is  taken  out  of  its  isola- 
tion and  set  in  its  context  in  Jeremiah's  teaching  as  a  whole. 
The  charge  that  it  is  lacking  in  original  poetic  images  is  not 
weighty,  unless  we  unjustifiably  restrict  Jeremiah's  authentic 
utterances  to  the  compass  assigned  them  by  Duhm ;  and  for 
daring  originality  the  thoughts  of  the  passage  are  not  surpassed 
even  by  any  utterance  of  Jeremiah  himself. 

We  may  pass  then  from  these  general  considerations  to  the 
detailed  study  of  the  passage,  feeling  that  so  far  nothing  has  been 
urged  against  its  authenticity  that  need  shake  our  confidence  in  it. 
The  thought  of  the  passage  has  been  expounded  and  its  signific- 
ance set  forth  in  the  Introduction  to  this  commentary  (vol.  i, 
pp.  43-48),  and  the  writer  would  be  glad  if  the  student  would 
read  the  notes  which  follow  in  connexion  with  that  more  general 
discussion  (see  also  his  notes  on  Heb.  viii.  8-13). 

31.  a  new  covenant.  On  the  Hebrew  idea  of  *  covenant'  the 
Bible  Dictionaries  and  histories  of  the  religion  of  Israel  may  be 
consulted.  The  term  means  generally  a  compact  or  agreement 
made  between  twc  parties,  though  in  some  cases  it  is  simply 
imposed  by  one  on  the  other,  or  may  I>e  a  promise  to  which  con- 
ditions are  not  aUached.      In  antiquity  the  religion  of  a  people 


I04  JEREMIAH  31.  32.     J 

I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by 

was  something  that  had  grown  with  its  growth,  it  had  come 
down  from  immemorial  antiquity.  The  relation  between  a  clan 
and  its  deity  was  a  natural  and  inevitable  relation.  The  religion 
of  Israel  constituted  an  exception  to  this,  in  that  it  was  a  coven- 
ant religion.  In  other  words,  the  relation  between  Yahweh  and 
Israel  was  neither  inevitable  nor  compulsory.  Yahweh,  free  to 
choose  any  nation,  chose  Israel  to  be  His  people,  and  Israel  took 
Yahweh  to  be  its  God,  promising  obedience  to  His  commands. 
This  covenant  was  ratified  at  Sinai.  But  Israel's  inveterate  dis- 
obedience had  released  Yahweh  from  His  obligation.  Hence  the 
old  Sinaitic  covenant  was  annulled  by  the  dissolution  of  Israel's 
national  existence.  But  while  the  Old  Covenant  was  thus 
abolished,  the  ties  which  bound  Yahweh  to  His  people  could  not 
be  so  readily  snapped.  Hence  a  New  Covenant  will  replace  the 
old,  but  a  covenant  which  will  provide  against  the  failure  that 
had  overtaken  its  predecessor,  and  infallibly  ensure  its  own 
permanent  validity.  The  expression  '  to  make  a  covenant '  is 
properly  '  to  cut  a  covenant,'  perhaps  derived  from  the  custom 
mentioned  in  xxxiv.  18  (see  note). 

with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah.  In 
view  of  33,  where  '  the  house  of  Israel '  alone  is  mentioned,  it  :z 
probable  that  we  should  regard  'and  .  .  .  Judah'  as  an  insertion. 
Jeremiah  meant  by  'Israel'  the  whole  people  including  Judah. 
The  author  of  these  chapters,  taking  '  Israel '  to  mean  the 
northern' tribes,  adds  the  reference  to  Judah,  in  conformity  with 
his  desire  to  emphasize  the  restoration  not  of  these  only  but  also 
of  Judah.  The  omission  of  the  words  also  restores  the  Qina 
rhythm.  It  is  with  the  nation,  not  with  the  individual,  that  the 
New  Covenant  is  made. 

32.  The  prophet  proceeds  to  define  the  New  Covenant,  first 
negatively  in  this  verse,  and  then  positively  in  33,  34.  It  is  not 
to  be  like  the  covenant  made  at  the  Exodus,  the  Sinaitic  covenant. 
In  what  respect  it  was  different  has  been  already  explained  (p.  103). 
The  verse  is  cumbrously  expressed,  but  it  would  impoverish  the 
passage  to  strike  it  out.  The  contrast  with  the  Old  Covenant 
needed  to  be  brought  out  and  its  failure  explicitly  mentioned,  in 
order  to  justify  the  making  of  a  New  Covenant.  Cornill  lightens  the 
style  and  restores  a  regular  Qina  measure  by  omitting  '  to  bring 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt '  and  '  saith  the  Lord.'  Giesebrecht 
omits  the  latter,  but  in  the  former  case  stnkesout  simply  '  the  land 
of,'  though  he  inserts  '  aforetime  '  after '  I  maJe.'  This,  while  less 
satisfactory  in  form,  is  better  in  substance.  Cornill  thinks  that 
the  definite  mention  of  the  Exodus  was  unncr-ssary,  since  it  was 
quite  clear  what  was  intended.  But  there  was  a  possibiUty  of 
misunderstanding,  which  is  precluded  by  this  c'aur.e. 


JEREMIAH  31.  33.     J  -  105 

the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  ^  which 
my  covenant  they  brake,  aUhough  I  was  ^an  husband 
unto  them,  saith  the  Lord.     But  this  is  the  covenant  33 

"  Or,  forasjiiuch  as  they  brake  my  covenant 
^'  Or,  lord  over  ihein 
, Zj . 

in  the  day.  Naturally  Jeremiah  does  not  mean  the  day  on 
which  the  Hebrews  left  Egypt,  any  more  than  in  vii.  22  (see  note), 
but  at  that  p&riod. 

took  them  by  the  hand.  The  metaphor  is  of  a  child  guided 
by  his  father  in  his  faltering  steps;  it  is  a  beautiful  picture  of 
Yahweh'&%entlenessand  loving  care  :  cf.  Hos.  xi.  1-4,  which  may 
have  been  in  the  prophet's  mind,  Isa.  xl.  11,  xli.  13,  xlii.  6,  li.  18. 

Z  was  an  husband.  The  first  person  is  emphatic,  as  is  the 
third  person  in  the  preceding  clause.  The  verb  is  found  also  in 
iii.  14,  where  it  certainly  means  '  I  am  a  baal,'  that  is,  both  lord 
and  husband  (see  the  note).  This  does  not  yield  a  good  sense 
here,  and  some  have  wished  to  give  the  word  the  meaning  '  to 
loathe,'  '  to  reject.'  This  is  philologically  dubious,  but  the  sense 
is  that  required,  and  a  very  slight  alteration  in  the  Hebrew  {gaialli 
for  ba'alii)  proposed  by  Giesebrecht  gives  it.  Probably  the  LXX, 
which  is  quoted  in  Heb.  viii.  9  (see  the  notes  on  that  passage", 
read  this  verb,  so  also  the  Syriac.  We  should  accordingly  sub- 
stitute here  '  and  I  abhorred  them.*  Duhm  accepts  this  emendation 
and  draws  the  inference  that  Jeremiah  cannot  have  written  the 
passage.  The  rejection  must  refer  to  the  exile,  but  a  writer  who 
snf"^,';  s  of  this  as  a  rejection  of  the  'fathers'  must  himself  have 
'.ved  long  aftervvards.  But  this  is  to  overlook  the  fact  that  the 
*  fathers '  are  in  the  first  instance  the  generation  that  came  out  of 
Egypt,  whom  Jeremiah  would  rightly  so  describe,  since  they 
belonged  to  the  distant  past.  If  we  are  to  press  his  language,  we 
should  be  more  justified  in  referring  the  pronouns  which  follow 
('  they,'  '  them  ')  to  the  Hebrews  of  the  Exodus  than  to  the  Jews 
•~f  the  Captivity.  But  obviously  Jeremiah  is  not  speaking  with 
such  strictness  ;  he  looks  at  the  nation  as  having  a  continuous  life, 
and  while  the  <  fathers'  refers  at  first  to  the  Hebrews  in  the 
wilderness,  the  prophet  passes  in  the  next  clauses  to  the  thought 
of  the  people  throughout  its  history  of  rebellion  which  finally 
drove  Yahweh  to  the  last  extremity.  The  rejection  is  not  to  be 
identified  with  the  exile,  it  is  its  antecedent.  Besides,  the  exile  of 
the  northern  tribes  was  vcr3'  present  to  Jeremiah's  mind,  and  that 
had  taken  place  a  ^;ood  deal  more  than  a  century  earlier.  Wc 
are  accordingly  not  justified  in  drawing  the  inference  that  the 
passage  must  have  been  written  long  after  Jeremiah's  time. 
33.     Now  follows  the  positive  description  of  the  New  Covenant. 


io6  JEREMIAH  31.  33.     J 

that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days, 
saith  the  Lord  ;  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts, 

Yahweh  will  put  His  law  in  the  inward  parts  and  write  it  on  the 
heart.  Duhm  raises  the  objection,  Why  did  not  God  do  this  at 
the  first  ?  Is  He  not  to  blame  for  the  failure  of  the  Old  Covenant  ? 
Cornill  points  out  that  such  an  objection  banishes  the  idea  of 
history,  on  which  elsewhere  Duhm  himself  lays  such  stress,  and 
we  might  as  well  ask  why  God  did  not  send  Jesus  at  the  Creation 
instead  of  in  the  fullness  of  time.  A  second  objection  is  that  we 
receive  no  explanation  of  the  writing  of  the  law  on  the  heart. 
|The  writer  does  not  speak  of  a  new  or  a  better  law,  or  any  trans- 
dformation  of  man's  nature.  He  simply  says  Y^.weh  will 
faccomplish  it.  But  such  an  objection  is  valid  only  if  the  present 
passage  is  taken  by  itself  and  treated  as  the  author's  complete 
message.  If  Jeremiah  was  its  author,  then  it  stands  in  a  very 
rich  context,  which  amply  supplies  the  explanation  of  what  is  here 
left  unexplained.  He  had  elsewhere  spoken  of  the  circumcision 
of  the  heart  (iv.  4),  he  had  communicated  the  Divine  promise  *  I 
will  give  them  an  heart  to  know  me,  that  I  am  the  Lord,'  and 
announced  their  return  to  Him  with  their  whole  heart  (xxiv.  7). 
On  this  point  what  is  said  in  the  Introduction  should  be  read  (vol, 
i,  pp.  43,  44).  The  'new  birth,'  the  'new  heart,'  as  the  Gospel 
proclaims  them,  are  really  implied  in  this  great  saying.  It  is  not 
the  author's  ideal  that  the  nation  should  become  a  people  of 
legalists  and  ritualists,  familiar  with  all  the  regulations  of  the 
ceremonial  law  and  instinctively  obeying  them.  It  is  rather  that 
in  the  regenerate  personality  there  should  reside  the  eternal 
principles  of  religion  and  morality  as  the  spring  of  all  action.  Th  '. 
Jeremianic  origin  of  the  passage  is  attested  by  the  Second  Isaiah'ii 
reference  (Isa.  li.  7)  to  '  the  people  in  whose  heart  is  my  law,' 
which  seems  to  depend  on  this  verse. 

1  will  put  .  .  .  write  it.  *  Instead  of  an  external  'aw 
engraven  on  tables  of  stone,  there  will  be  the  law  written  on 
tables  that  are  hearts  of  flesh.  An  external  code  must  al  vays'  bo 
rigid  ancj  inelastic ;  frequently  it  affords  no  guidance  to  conduct. 
and  its  control  acts  as  an  irritant  to  the  natural  man.  The  law 
written  on  the  heart  implies  an  inner  principle  which  can  deal 
with  each  case  of  conscience  sympathetically  as  it  arises,  and  can 
ensure  the  fulfilment  of  its  behests,  because  it  has  brought  the 
j^'iwinner  life  into  perfect  harmony  with  itself.  The  heart,  and  thus 
'*  the  whole  life,  has  v^ith  the  engraving  of  the  law  upon  it,  itself 
become  new.  The  heart  embraces  not  only  the  emotional  and 
ethical  but  also  the  intellectual  life.  And  thus,  by  being  trans- 
formed from  a  foreign  ruler  into  a  native  and  inward  impulse,  the 
law  gains  the  power  of  self-fulfilment.'     (Quoted  from  the  editor's 


4 


JEREMIAH  31.  34.     J  107 

and  in  their  heart  will  I  write  it ;  and  I  will  be  their 
God,   and  they  shall   be   my   people :   and  they  shall  34 
teach  no  more   every  man    his   neighbour,   and   every 
man  his   brother,  saying.   Know   the   Lord  :    for  they 
shall   all  know   me,  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the 

commentary  on  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  The  Century  Bible, 
pp.  171,  172). 

and  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  he   my  people. 

Such  had  indeed  been  the  relationship  which  the  Old  Covenant 
had  been  designed  to  establish  (Exod.  xix.  5,  6,  2  Sam.  vii.  24)  ; 
but  God's  purpose  had  been  ultimately  thwarted  by  Israel's 
disobedience.  This  had  created  a  serious  problem  for  earlier 
prophets,  who  solved  in  various  ways  the  intolerable  contradiction 
involved  in  the  relationship  of  a  holy  God  to  a  sinful  people  : 
Jeremiah  solves  it  by  this  doctrine  of  the  New  Covenant.  The 
people,  not  the  individual,  remains  with  him  as  with  his 
predecessors  the  religious  unit.  '  But  the  advance  he  makes  is 
that  Israel's  side  of  the  covenant  is  perfectly  fulfilled,  because 
religion  has  become  a  matter  for  the  individual.  While  it  was 
regarded  exclusively  as  national,  it  was  impossible  for  it  to  be  other 
than  superficial  and  external.  By  carrying  it  into  the  heart,  it 
became  personal,  and  because  each  individual  was  righteous,  the 
aggregate  of  individuals  that  formed  the  nation  must  be  righteous 
too.  Thus  we  may  say  that  individualism  guaranteed  the  reality 
of  national  religion.  But  by  this  transformation  in  the  idea  of 
religion  the  national  limitations  were  really  transcended,  and 
since  the  moral  and  spiritual  are  the  universal,  with  Jeremiah's 
doctrine  of  the  New  Covenant  universalism  was  born.  The  State 
could  perish,  and  sacrifice  be  brought  to  an  end,  but  religion  had 
been  detached  from  these  accidents,  and  could  therefore  survive 
them.'     {Hebrews  in  The  Century  Bible,  p.  172.) 

34.  As  things  are,  the  knowledge  of  Yahvveh  is  derived  from 
external  sources,  so  that  one  man  communicates  it  to  another,  and 
he    in   turn  to  a  third.     But  in  the  blessed  time   to  come,  this 
knowledge  will  be  the  property  of  each,  an  inward  possession, 
implanted  by  God  Himself,  who  gives  to  all,  from  the  least  to  the 
greatest,  a  heart  to  know  Him   (xxiv.  7).     And  this  knowledge  iS 
not  just  the  knowledge  of  the  law,  even  in  the  highest  sense,  still  | 
lcs3  docs  the  prophet  mean  that  each  is  to  become  an  expert  in  I 
all  the  minute  regulations  of  the  cercmoniaLiaw.       Such  would,' 
indeed,  be  an  ideal  unworthy  of  Jeremiah.     But  happily  we  know 
from  himself  what  the  phrase  *  to  know  me,'  so  often  on  his  lips 
(ii.  8,  iv.  22,  ix.   3,  6,  24,  xxii.  16,  xxiv.  7),  really  meant  for  him. 
In  xxii.    i6  he  speaks  of  Josiah  as  evincing    his    knowledge  of 


io8  JEREMIAH  31.  35.     JS 

greatest  of  them,  saith   the   Lord  :   for  I  will   forgive 

their  iniquity,  and  their  sin  will  I  remember  no  more. 

35  [s]  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  which  giveth  the  sun  for  a  light 

Yahweh  in  that  '  he  judged  the  cause  of  the  poor  and  needy  ; ' 
and  still  more  definitely  in  ix.  24  he  describes  the  knowledge  of 
God,  which  is  man's  true  glory,  to  be  the  insight  into  His 
character  :  '  let  him  that  glorieth  glory  in  this,  that  he  under- 
standeth,  and  knoweth  me,  that  I  am  the  Lord  which  exercise 
lovingkindness,  judgement,  and  righteousness,  in  the  earth  :  for 
in  these  things  I  delight.'  Such  an  insight  into  the  character  of 
Yahweh,  it  is  the  Divine  purpose  to  implant  in  every  man.  And 
a  character  and  conduct  on  the  part  of  each,  corresponding  to 
Yahweh's  own  character  and  conduct,  will  be  the  inevitable  out- 
come of  this  gracious  dealing  with  them.  We  have  an  echo  of 
this  verse  in  Isa.  liv.  13,  *  And  ail  thy  children  shall  be  taught  of 
the  Lord.' 

I  will  forg-ive  ...  no  more.  Naturally,  ideal  relations  could 
not  be  restored  while  the  sin  of  Israel  remained  unpardoned  and 
ever  present  to  the  Divine  consciousness.  The  disturbing  element 
must  be  removed,  an  amnesty  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term 
must  be  proclaimed.  Clemency  will  forgive,  but,  a  strange 
paradox,  Omniscience  will  forget ! 

35-37.  This  section  is  regarded  by  several,  though  not,  as  is 
sometimes  said,  by  all  critics  as  a  later  addition.  Movers  and  Hitzig 
attributed  it  to  the  Second  Isaiah  ;  this  view  was  rejected  by  Graf, 
who,  however,  thought  that  35,  36  seemed  like  a  supplementary 
insertion,  37  like  a  marginal  gloss.  Giesebrecht,  Kuenen,  Stade, 
Cornill,  Kent,  and  Gillies  treat  it  as  late  ;  Duhm,  it  need  hardly  be 
said,  regards  it  as  non-Jeremianic,  but  he  also  assigns  it  to  another 
author  than  31-34.  It  is,  nevertheless,  attributed  to  Jeremiah  by 
Orelli,  Konig,  Bulmerincq,  Rothstein,  Koberle,  and  apparently 
Driver.  In  the  LXX  37  is  placed  before  35,  but  it  would  be  too  hasty 
to  judge  the  \vhole  passage  on  this  ground  ;  at  most  it  points  to  a  cer- 
tain probability  that  37  was  originally  a  marginal  gloss,  which  has 
been  taken  into  the  text,  now  at  this  point  now  at  that.  Verse  37  is 
also,  alike  in  style  and  content,  scarcely  on  Jeremiah's  level ;  the 
measuring  of  heaven  and  searching  out  of  its  foundations  has  no 
inner  connexion,  as  Giesebrecht  points  out,  with  the  rejection  of 
Israel.  The  strenuous  nationalism  in  the  whole  passage  is  scarcely 
favourable  to  its  authenticity.  It  is  true  that  Jeremiah  was  a  fervent 
patriot,  but  he  did  not  put  patriotism  in  the  first  place,  and  the 
very  strong,  one  might  almost  say  exaggerated,  expression  here 
given  to  the  thought  is  not  what  we  expect  from  him.  Further 
the  points  of  contact  with  the  Second  Isaiah  are  very  striking. 
Giesebrecht  quotes  as, parallels  to  the  form  and, content  of  35  the 


JEREMIAH  31.  3''.     S  109 

by  day,  and  the  ordinances  of  the  moon  and  of  the 
stars  for  a  h'ght  by  night,  which  f^stirreth  up  the  sea,  that 
the  waves  thereof  roar ;  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  his  name  : 
If  these  ordinances  depart  from  before  me,saith  the  Lord,  36 

■^  Or,  stillctli  the  sea,  -ivhen  ifc.     See  Isa.  li.  15. 

following  :  Isa.  xl.  12,  26,  xlii.  5,  xliv.  24  flf.,  xlv.  7,  18.  The 
present  writer  cannot  attach  the  same  weight  to  these  as  several 
critics  do,  since  he  does  not  agree  that  prophetic  passages  which 
speak  of  Yahvveh's  work  in  creation  or  the  rule  of  nature  are 
necessarily  later  (see  notes  on  v.  20-22).  For  the  words  *  If 
these  ordinances  depart  from  before  me'  Giesebrecht  compares 
Isa.  liv.  9,  10,  though  this  is  not  a  very  close  parallel.  The  words 
'which  stirreth  up  the  sea,  that  the  waves  thereof  roar  ;  the  Lord 
of  hosts  is  his  name '  are  found  in  precisely  the  same  form  in  Isa. 
li.  15.  The  unmetrical  style  is  also  urged  against  the  passage.  It 
must  of  course  be  remembered  that  the  verses  are  prejudiced  by 
their  position.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Jeremiah  can  have 
uttered  them  as  the  climax  to  the  prophecy  of  the  New  Covenant. 
If  it  were  necessary  to  hold  that  they  were  written  for  their  pres- 
ent position,  it  would  be  better  to  assign  them  to  the  compiler  of 
XXX,  xxxi.  But  if  they  are  an  independent  fragment  the  case  is 
not  so  clear.  The  fact  that  these  chapters  contain  a  great  deal  of 
secondary  matter,  the  probably  later  origin  of  37  which  is  closely 
connected  with  35,  36,  the  nationalist  character  of  the  passage,  and 
to  some  extent  the  points  of  contact  with  II  Isaiah,  incline  the 
editor  to  regard  35,  36,  as  well  as  37,  as  non-Jeremianic,  but  he 
cannot  pretend  to  consider  the  arguments  for  this  position  as  in 
any  way  conclusive. 

35.  the  ordinances  of  the  moon  and  of  the  stars.  We  should 
probably  read,  with  the  LXX,  simply  '  the  moon  and  the  stars.' 
The  mention  of  *  the  ordinances  '  with  reference  to  moon  and  stars 
and  not  also  to  the  sun  is  strange. 

stirreth  up  the  sea.  The  verb  is  used  in  this  sense  here  and 
in  Isa.  li.  15,  and  also  according  to  the  majority  of  commentators  in 
Job  xxvi.  12,  though  it  is  not  improbable  that  in  the  latter  passage 
we  should  adopt  the  margin  '  stilleth  *  (see  the  editor's  note). 

the  IiOBD  of  hosts  is  his  name.  A  similar  formula  occurs 
in  all  three  of  the  *  creation  passages '  in  Amos  (iv.  13,  v.  8,  ix.  6), 
which  are  regarded  by  many  scholars  as  later  insertions. 

36.  these  ordinances:  i.e.  the  Divine  decrees  wliicli  the  heav- 
enly bodies  obe}'^,  which  not  one  of  them  dare  disobey  (Isa.  xl.  26). 
Just  as  soon  should  those  laws  fail  which  hold  the  universe  to- 
gether as  ar.  ordered  system,  as  Israel's  national  existence  be 
finally  destroyed. 


no  JEREMIAH  31.  37-40.     S 

then  the  seed  of  Israel  also  shall  cease  from  being  a  na- 

37  tion  before  me  for  ever.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  If  heaven 
above  can  be  measured,  and  the  foundations  of  the  earth 
searched  out  beneath,  then  will  I  also  cast  off  all  the  seed 
of  Israel  for  all  that  they  have  done,  saith  the  Lord. 

38  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  the  city 
shall  be  built  to  the  Lord  from  the  tower  of  Hananel 

39  unto  the  gate  of  the  corner.  And  the  measuring  line 
shall  yet  go  out  straight  onward  unto  the  hill  Gareb,  and 

40  shall  turn  about  unto  Goah.     And  the  whole  valley  of 

3*7.  The  point  in  the  comparison  is  the  impossibility  of  the 
events  happening.  As  little  as  man  can  measure  the  expanse  of 
heaven  or  work  down  to  the  bases  on  which  the  world's  fabric 
rests,  so  little  can  God  cast  Israel  away  on  account  of  its  sin. 
This  is  hardly  in  the  manner  of  such  a  prophet  as  Amos,  who 
definitely  contemplated  the  final  rejection  of  Israel  for  its  sin. 

38-40.  This  is  anti-climax  indeed.  It  is  hardly  likely  that 
a  prophet  such  as  Jeremiah  would  have  concerned  himself  with 
the  future  boundaries  of  Jerusalem  in  this  minute  way.  In  the 
post-exilic  period  the  people  were  much  preoccupied  with  ques- 
tions such  as  this  and  the  restoration  of  the  fortifications.  The 
closest  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  Zech.  xiv,  which  may  even  have 
suggested  our  passage.  The  extent  of  the  city  is  not  the  only 
point  of  interest  to  the  author ;  he  emphasizes  also  its  dedication 
to  Yahweh,  both  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  oracle. 

38.  tlie  tower  of  Hananel.  This  is  similarly  mentioned  in 
Zech.  xiv.  10.  Its  position  is  defined  by  Neh.  iii.  i,  xii.  39  as  at  the 
north-east  corner  of  the  city,  while  the  gate  of  the  comer,  which 
is  also  mentioned  in  Zech.  xiv.  10,  seems  from  2  Kings  xiv.  13,  2 
Chron.  xxvi.  9,  to  have  been  at  the  north-west  corner.  This  verse 
accordingly  indicates  the  limits  of  the  north  wall  of  the  city  from 
east  to  west. 

39.  the  hill  Gareb  and  Goah  are  mentioned  nowhere  else. 
Presumably  we  start  from  the  north-west  corner  and  turn  south 
(Giesebrecht  reads  'southward  '  instead  of  *  straight  onward,'  per- 
haps rightly)  or  south-west  as  far  as  the  hill  Gareb ;  from  which 
the  line  makes  a  turn,  perhaps  due  south  till  Goah  is  reached. 
For  Goah  Cheyne  suggests  Gibeah  '  hill,'  identifying  it  with  Olivet. 

40.  The  regeneration  of  Jerusalem  is  to  go  so  ^r  that  even  the 
unclean  districts  on  the  south,  the  valley  of  Hinnom  defiled  with 
human  sacrifice  ('  the  dead  bodies '),  are  to  be  taken  into  the  city 
and   yet   not  to  compromise  its  sanctity.     Rather  they  will  be 


JEREMIAH  31.  40—32.  i.     S  iii 

the  dead  bodies,  and  of  the  ashes,  and  all  the  fields  unto 
tlie  brook  Kidron,  unto  the  corner  of  the  horse  gate  to- 
ward the  east,  shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord  ;  it  shall  not 
be  plucked  up,  nor  thrown  down  any  more  for  ever. 

[S]  The  word  that  came  to  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord  32 

redeemed  from  their  uncleanness  by  the  mighty  hoh'ness  resident 
within  it,  so  that  the  whole  city  will  be  holy  to  Yahweh. 

the  ashes:  properly  '  fat,'  i.e.  the  ashes  which  resulted  from 
the  burning  of  the  fat  of  the  victims. 

the  fields  unto  the  brook  Kidron.  The  Hebrew  presents 
us  with  two  alternative  readings,  one  of  which  is  adopted  in 
R.V.,  while  the  other  gives  us  a  word  which,  if  it  is  not  a  mere 
blunder,  is  not  found  elsewhere,  and  the  meaning  of  which  is  un- 
certain ;  perhaps,  as  Graf  supposed,  places  where  rubbish  was 
deposited.  Cheyne  follows  Klostermann  in  reading  *  furnaces.' 
The  valley  of  Kidron  is  on  the  east  of  Jerusalem. 

the  horse  gate  :  according  to  Neh.  iii.  27,  28,  was  near  the 
Temple  on  the  south-east  of  Jerusalem. 

xxxii.     The  Redemption  of  a  Piece  of  Family  Property 

BY  Jeremiah,  and  its  Significance. 
The  incident  here  recorded  is  obviously  historical,  and  its  meaning 
lies  on  the  surface.  At  a  time  when  the  outlook  was  very  dark, 
and  landed  property  seemed  the  most  hopeless  form  of  investment, 
Jeremiah  exercised  his  right  of  redemption,  and  bought  with  all  due 
legal  formalities  a  field  from  his  cousin  Hanamel.  By  this  action  he 
expressed  his  conviction  that,  in  spite  of  the  impending  destruc- 
tion of  the  State  and  captivity  of  the  people,  the  time  would 
come  when  property  would  be  bought,  no  longer  as  a  venture  of 
faith,  but  as  one  of  the  ordinary  transactions  of  life  in  which 
security  of  tenure  could  be  taken  for  granted.  The  reasons  which 
prompted  Hanamel's  offer  to  his  cousin  are  unknown,  but  probably 
the  scarcity  and  the  consequent  high  prices  had  reduced  him  to  the 
necessity  of  selling  his  land.  That  he  should  have  gone  to  Jere- 
miah is  remarkable,  in  view  of  the  bitter  persecution  the  prophet 
had  had  to  endure  from  his  kinsmen  at  Anathoth.  We  gather 
further  from  the  incident  that  Jeremiah  was  apparently  possessed 
of  a  competence. 

While  the  incident  itself  is  clearly  historical,  the  chapter  raises 
difficult  critical  problems.  The  historical  introduction  explaining 
Jeremiah's  circumstances  at  the  time  is  regarded  by  most  recent 
critics  as  secondary.     In  the  prayer  of  Jeremiah  Stade  rejected 


112  JEREMIAH  32.  i.     S 

in  the  tenth  year  of  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah,  which  was 

17-23,  and  found  considerable  support  in  this  view.  Duhm 
carried  through  the  criticism  to  the  extent  of  rejecting  the  whole 
of  16-44,  ^"*^  h^^  results  have  been  accepted  by  Cornill  and  Kent. 
Schmidt  had  independently  reached  the  same  result.  Giesebrecht 
takes  1-5,  17-23,  28-42  as  later  insertions,  while  GilHes  and 
Rothstein  pass  a  similar  judgement.  The  detailed  discussion 
is  best  reserved  for  the  notes  ;  here  the  editor  may  simply  say  that 
he  regards  1-5,  17-23,  28-35  ^s  later  additions  ;  and  36-44  as 
Jeremianic  in  basis,  but  in  its  present  form  later  than  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  and  perhaps  worked  over  by  the  editor. 

xxxii.  1-5.  In  the  tenth  year  of  Zedekiah  Jeremiah  received 
a  revelation  when  he  was  imprisoned  in  the  court  of  the  guard. 
For  the  king  had  imprisoned  liim  because  he  had  said  that  Yah- 
weh  would  give  Jerusalem  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  Zedekiah 
should  be  captured  and  taken  to  Babylon,  and  be  there  till 
Yahweh  visited  him,  so  that  the  war  with  the  Chaldeans  was 
doomed  to  failure. 

6-15.  Yahweh  told  me  that  Hanamel  my  cousin  would  come 
and  ask  me  to  buy  his  field  in  Anathoth,  which  I  had  the  right 
to  purchase.  So  when  he  came  and  asked  me  to  do  this,  I  knew 
that  it  was  Yahweh  who  had  told  me.  I  bought  the  field  for 
seventeen  shekels,  with  all  the  due  legal  formalities,  and  gave  the 
deed  of  purchase  to  Baruch,  charging  him  to  put  them  in  an 
earthen  vessel  that  they  might  be  long  preserved.  For  Yahweh 
proclaims  that  property  shall  once  again  be  bought  in  the  land. 

16-27.  When  I  had  delivered  the  deed  to  Baruch  I  prayed 
thus  :  O  Yahweh,  Creator  of  the  world,  for  whom  nothing  is  too 
hard,  merciful  to  thousands  and  repaying  the  children  for  the  sins 
of  their  fathers,  wise  and  mighty,  observant  of  all  men's  ways 
that  they  may  receive  the  due  reward  of  their  deeds,  who  didst 
win  for  Thyself  a  name  in  Egypt,  and  didst  bring  Israel  thence 
with  great  wonders  to  this  plentiful  land,  wherein  Thy  people  have 
utterly  disobeyed  Thee,  the  siege  mounts  are  here  for  the  capture 
of  the  city,  and  by  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence  it  will  be  delivered 
into  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans  ;  yet  Thou  hast  said,  Buy  the 
field,  although  the  city  is  given  up  to  the  Chaldeans.  Then  Yah- 
weh answered,  *  I  am  Yahweh,  is  anything  too  wonderful  for 
me?' 

28-35.  Therefore  thus  saith  Yahweh  :  I  will  deliver  this  city  to 
the  Chaldeans,  who  shall  capture  and  burn  it,  polluted  as  it  is 
with  idolatry.  The  people  have  done  evil  from  their  youth,  the 
city  has  provoked  Me  from  the  day  it  was  built,  so  that  I  will 
remove  it  out  of  My  sight  for  the  sins  which  have  angered  Me. 
They  have  turned  from  Me  in  disobedience  to  My  urgent  instruction, 


JEREMIAH  32.  2.     G  n^ 

the  eighteenth  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar.     Now  at  that  2 


defiling  My  house  with  their  idols,  and  ofTering  their  children  to 
Molcch,  though  I  had  never  enjoined  anything  so  horrible  upon 
them. 

36-44.  Yet  to  this  city,  now  captured  by  Babylon,  I  will  bring 
back  its  people  from  their  dispersion,  and  cause  them  to  dwell 
safely  in  it.  They  shall  be  My  people,  I  will  be  their  God.  1  will 
give  them  a  heart  to  fear  Me,  will  make  an  everlasting  covenant 
with  them,  and  plant  them  in  the  land.  As  I  have  brought  evil 
on  them,  so  I  will  bring  all  the  good  I  have  promised.  Fields 
shall  again  be  bought  in  all  parts  of  the  land  with  all  the  due  for- 
malities of  the  law. 

xxxii.  1-5.  This  introduction,  narrating  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  transactions  here  recorded  took  place,  is  apparently 
editorial.  The  suggestion  which  it  conveys  to  the  reader  is  that 
Jeremiah's  imprisonment  was  due  to  Zedekiah's  resentment  at  the 
prediction  of  his  capture  and  exile  to  Babylon,  whereas  it  was 
due  rather  to  the  hostility  of  the  princes  and  those  responsible  for 
the  conduct  of  the  military  defence.  The  king  was  as  friendly  to 
Jeremiah  as  he  dared  to  be,  and  used  his  prerogative  to  protect 
him  as  far  as  possible.  But  the  passage  is  quite  trustworthy  in 
its  indication  of  the  period  at  which  the  event  happened.  The 
prophet's  arrest  took  place  in  the  interval  between  the  first  and 
second  part  of  the  siege,  when  the  Babylonian  army  had  left 
Jerusalem  on  account  of  the  relief  expedition  sent  by  Egypt.  He 
used  the  opportunity  to  start  for  Anathoth  to  attend  to  his  property 
there,  but  was  arrested  on  the  pretext  that  he  was  deserting  to  the 
Chaldeans.  After  many  days  spent  in  the  prison,  he  was  removed, 
on  his  own  petition  to  the  king,  to  the  court  of  the  guard,  and 
remained  there  till  the  city  was  taken  (xxxvii.  11-21,  xxxviii.  28). 
It  was  while  he  was  in  this  condition  of  honourable  confinement, 
in  which  his  friends  were  permitted  to  visit  him,  that  Hanamel 
came  to  request  him  to  buy  his  field.  We  do  not  know  definitely 
whether  the  siege  had  been  resumed,  but  since  '  many  days '  had 
elapsed  between  Jeremiah's  arrest  and  his  removal  to  the  court  of 
the  guard,  the  probabilities  are  that  the  city  had  been  again  in- 
vested. This  view  is  also  favoured  by  the  statement  in  2,  '  at  that 
time  the  king  of  Babylon's  army  besieged  Jerusalem.'  In  that 
case  Hanamel  would  already  be  in  Jerusalem,  and  had  not  come 
in  from  Anathoth  in  order  to  sell  his  land.  (The  contrary  view 
taken  by  Cornill  in  his  commentary,  p.  359,  is  withdrawn,  in  favour 
of  the  view  here  taken,  on  p.  xxxvii.) 

1.  the  tenth  year  of  Zedekiah.  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  began 
in  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign  (see  xxxix.  i). 

2.  Jeremiah  the  prophet.    We  have  here  the  same  designation 
II  I 


ii4  JEREMIAH  32.  3-6.     SJ 

time  the  king  of  Babylon's  army  besieged  Jerusalem  :  and 
Jeremiah  the  prophet  was  shut  up  in  the  court  of  the  guard, 

3  which  was  in  the  king  of  Judah's  house.  For  Zedekiah 
king  of  Judah  had  shut  him  up,  saying.  Wherefore  dost 
thou  prophesy,  and  say,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Behold, 
I  will  give  this  city  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 

4  and  he  shall  take  it ;  and  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah  shall 
not  escape  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans,  but  shall 
surely  be  delivered  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
and  shall  speak  with  him  mouth  to  mouth,  and  his  eyes 

5  shall  behold  his  eyes  ]  and  he  shall  lead  Zedekiah  to 
Babylon,  and  there  shall  he  be  until  I  visit  him,  saith  the 
Lord  :  though  ye  fight  with  the  Chaldeans,  ye  shall  not 
prosper  ? 

6  [J]  And  Jeremiah  said.  The  word  of  the  Lord  came 


which  is  so  characteristic  a  feature  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  the 
section  xxvii-xxix.     It  is  omitted  in  the  LXX. 

the  court  of  the  gnard.  This  was  attached  to  the  king's 
palace  :  cf.  Neh.  iii.  25.  A  portion  of  the  court  was  apparently 
set  apart  for  those  whom  for  any  reason  it  was  expedient  to  keep 
under  observation  and  restraint,  but  whom  it  was  undesirable  to 
herd  with  the  inmates  of  the  common  prison.  The  term  does  not 
mean  the  court  where  the  guard  was  stationed,  but  the  court 
where  prisoners  were  guarded  (see  Driver,  p.  367). 

3-5  are  a  parenthesis,  explaining  the  grounds  on  which  Zedekiah 
had  imprisoned  the  prophet. 

3.  For:  so  Driver.     It  is  more  generally  translated  'Where.' 

5.  The  latter  part  of  this  verse  ('  until  .  .  .  prosper ')  is  absent 
from  the  LXX,  and  is  presumably  a  later  addition.  The  words 
'  until  I  visit  him'  suggest  that  a  change  was  to  take  place  in 
Zedekiah's  fortunes,  and  therefore  bears  a  favourable  sense  ;  never- 
theless they  are  ambiguous,  and,  as  such,  unlikely  to  have  been 
uttered  by  Jeremiah.  We  have  no  indication  elsewhere  that 
Zedekiah's  condition  was  ameliorated.  The  author  of  this  addition 
may  have  been  acquainted  with  some  story  of  the  kind,  but  it  is 
more  probable  that  he  confused  Zedekiah  with  Jehoiachin,  to  whom 
such  a  change  of  fortune  actually  came  (Hi.  31-34'). 

6.  The  present  text  makes  the  impression  that  Jeremiah  related 
the  incident  which  follows  to  Zedekiah  in  response  to  his  question 


JEREMIAH  32.  7,  8.     J  115 

unto  me,  saying,  Behold,  Hanamel  the  son  of  Shallum  7 
thine  uncle  shall  come  unto  thee,  saying,  Buy  thee  my 
Held  that  is  in  Anathoth :  for  the  right  of  redemption  is 
thine  to  buy  it.  So  Hanamel  mine  uncle's  son  came  to  8 
me  in  the  court  of  the  guard  according  to  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  said  unto  me.  Buy  my  field,  I  pray  thee,  that 
is  in  Anathoth,  which  is  in  the  land  of  Benjamin  :  for  the 
right  of  inheritance  is  thine,  and  the  redemption  is  thine  ; 
buy  it  for  thyself.     Then  I  knew  that  this  was  the  word  of 


(3-5\  which  is  obviously  impossible.  The  LXX  reads  *  And  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah,  saying,'  and  this  is  accepted  by 
several  scholars.  It  v^ould  also  be  possible  to  surmount  the  diffi- 
culty by  omitting  the  words  '  Jeremiah  said.' 

V.  thine  uncle.  Usually  it  is  thought,  probably  correctly,  that 
Shallum,  not  Hanamel,  was  Jeremiah's  uncle,  and  this  is  supported 
by  9  and  the  Hebrew  text  of  8,  which  definitely  speak  of  Hanamel 
as  '  my  uncle's  son.'  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  called  '  my  uncle  ' 
in  12,  but  we  should  probably  read  'my  uncle's  son,'  with  LXX, 
Syriac,  and  a  few  Hebrew  MSS. 

the  right  of  redemption.  The  word  for  *  redemption '  is 
connected  with  the  word  go' el.  The  go  el  was  the  next-of-kin,  on 
whom  various  duties  were  imposed  by  this  relationship  (see 
Lev.  XXV.  25  ff.).  The  duties  had  corresponding  rights  ;  the  go' el 
could  choose  whether  he  would  exercise  them  or  not,  but  till  he 
declined  no  other  could  undertake  them.  Thus  Boaz  could  not 
undertake  this  office  for  Ruth  until  the  next-of-kin  had  declined 
it  (Ruth  iii.  9-13,  iv.  1-12).  Jeremiah  had  the  right  of  pre- 
emption because  he  was  actually  the  next-of-kin,  as  is  indicated  by 
the  fact  that  he  had  'the  right  of  inheritance.'  The  regulations 
were  made  to  secure  that  property  was  kept  in  the  family.  We 
must  not  press  the  term  '  redemption  '  to  mean  that  Hanamel's 
field  had  been  already  sold,  and  that  he  desired  Jeremiah  to  buy 
it  back.  As  the  following  verse  shows,  Hanamel  was  still  the 
owner,  but  apparently  was  in  need  of  money,  as  would  be  very 
intelligible  in  the  situation.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  at  this  time 
individual  priests  possessed  landed  property,  and  were  able  to  dis- 
pose of  it  freely :  contrast  Lev.  xxv.  34. 

8.  which  is  .  .  .  Benjamin.     These  words  should  be  omitted, 

with  the  LXX  ;  obviously  Jeremiah  did  not  need  to  be  told  where 

Anathotli  was  situated.  The  words  are  a  gloss  introduced  from  i.  i. 

Then  I  knew  .  .  .  the  LORD.     This  is  a  very  striking  and 

instructive  statement.     In  6  he  says,  '  The  word  of  the  Lord  canic 

I  2 


ii6  JEREMIAH  32.  9.     J 

9  the  Lord.     And  I  bought  the  field  that  was  in  Anathoth 


unto  me.'  Yet  in  the  present  verse  we  see  that  he  did  not  know 
it  to  be  the  word  of  Yahweh  till  Hanamel  actually  came.  Prob- 
ably the  prophet  had  a  strong  impression  beforehand  that  Hanamel 
would  come  on  this  errand.  It  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  his 
own  projected  journey  'into  the  land  of  Benjamin,  to  receive  his 
portion  there,  in  the  midst  of  the  people'  (xxxvii.  12),  may  have 
been  connected  with  some  such  wish  on  the  part  of  Hanamel  to 
dispose  of  his  property.  Whether  this  was  so  or  not,  he  was 
probably  aware  of  his  cousin's  financial  position  and  presence  in 
the  city,  so  that  the  presentiment  that  he  would  come  to  him  had 
its  origin  in  the  actual  conditions.  But  such  a  presentiment  the 
prophet  would  not  have  dignified  with  the  name  '  the  word  of 
Yahweh  ; '  only  when  it  was  fulfilled  did  he  know  that  God  had 
inspired  it.  Its  Divine  meaning,  however,  was  not  in  the  visit  it- 
self or  in  the  premonition  he  had  received,  but  in  the  conviction 
of  Israel's  happy  restoration  it  gave  him  the  opportunity  of  ex- 
pressing in  so  vivid  and  impressive  a  manner.  Just  as  he  learnt 
a  lesson  while  he  watched  the  potter  moulding  the  clay,  so  a  simi- 
larly trivial  and  commonplace  sale  of  land  is  seen  to  be  charged 
with  a  deep  significance.  His  act  is  a  symbol  and  a  prophecy,  it 
is  God's  pledge  that  the  old  stable  condition  of  things  will  be 
restored  when  there  will  be  a  settled  state  of  society  in  which 
houses  and  land  would  be  freely  bought  and  sold.  Thus  he 
recognized  that  behind  his  cousin's  action,  and  all  unknown  to  him, 
the  Divine  impulse  had  been  at  work  ;  and  also  in  the  preparation 
he  had  himself  received  for  his  cousin's  request. 

9.  Recognizing  God's  hand  in  it  all,  Jeremiah  without  any 
demur  buys  the  field  and  pays  the  price.  The  sum  of  seventeen 
shekels  may  appear  small.  We  may  reasonably  assume,  however, 
that  Jeremiah  paid  the  full  price,  not  the  'prairie  value,'  which  at 
such  a  time  was  all  it  might  have  been  expected  to  fetch.  Only 
by  paying  this  could  he  have  taught  the  lesson  he  was  guided  to 
convey,  that  property  would  regain  its  stability,  and  be  bought  for 
what  it  was  intrinsically  worth  in  normal  conditions.  The  thresh- 
ing floor  and  oxen  of  Araunah  were  sold  for  fifty  shekels  (2  Sam. 
xxiv.  24),  the  potter's  field  for  thirty  (Matt,  xxvii.  3-10).  Taking 
the  value  of  the  silver  shekel  at  25.  gd.,  seventeen  shekels  would  be 
equivalent  to  £2  6s.  gd.  of  our  money,  but  the  purchasing  power 
would  of  course  be  very  much  greater.  Commentators  often 
quote  as  a  parallel  the  purchase  by  a  Roman,  at  full  price  in 
public  auction,  of  the  ground  on  which  Hannibal's  army  was  en- 
camped (Livy  xxvi.  11). 

that  was    in    Anathoth:    should  be  omitted,  as  by   LXX. 
The  clause  in   the  Hebrew  text  follows  '  mine  uncle's  son,'  the 


JEREMIAH  32.  lo,  n.     J  117 

of  Hanamel  mine  uncle's  son,  and  weighed  him  the  money, 
even  seventeen  shekels  of  silver.  And  I  subscribed  the 
deed,  and  sealed  it,  and  called  witnesses,  and  weighed  him 
the  money  in  the  balances.     So  I  took  the  deed  of  the 


E.V.  has  transposed  it  to  improve  the  sense.     We  should  follow 
the  LXX  also  in  omitting  '  the  money,  even.' 

10.  The  description  which  follows  has  given  rise  to  a  good  deal 
of  discussion,  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  record  here  since  the  true 
explanation  seems  to  have  been  furnished  by  the  discovery  of 
deeds  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria  of  the  same  type  as  that  here  des- 
cribed. In  his  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Laws,  Contracts,  and 
Letters,  Dr.  Johns  has  given  an  account  of  the  method  commonly 
pursued  in  executing  deeds  :  *  As  to  external  form,  most  of  those 
which  may  be  called  "deeds"  consist  of  small  pillow-shaped,  or 
rectangular,  cakes  of  clay.  In  many  cases  these  were  enclosed  in 
an  envelope,  also  of  clay,  powdered  clay  being  inserted  to  prevent 
the  envelope  adhering.  Both  the  inner  and  outer  parts  were 
generally  baked  hard  ;  but  there  are  many  examples  where  the 
clay  was  only  dried  in  the  sun.  The  envelope  was  inscribed  with 
a  duplicate  of  the  text.  Often  the  envelope  is  more  liberally  sealed 
than  the  inner  tablet.  This  sealing,  done  with  a  cylinder-seal 
running  on  an  axle,  was  repeated  so  often  as  to  render  its  design 
difficult  to  make  out,  and  to  add  greatly  to  the  difficulty  of  reading 
the  text'  (pp.  10,  11).  See  also  Jeremias,  The  Old  Testament  in 
the  Light  of  the  Ana'ent  East,  vol.  ii,  p.  281  :  'The  clay  tablet  was 
wrapped  in  another  layer,  and  upon  the  outer  cover  of  clay  the 
contents  were  inscribed  together  with  the  names  of  the  witnesses, 
and  the  seal  was  rolled  upon  it  also.'  We  have  here  then  the 
same  mode  apparently  followed,  the  deed  '  which  was  open  '  was 
the  outer  case  containing  a  copy  of  the  deed  itself  which  was 
sealed  up  within  it.  The  Hebrew  text  may  have  been  glossed, 
but  legal  language  is  proverbially  redundant,  and  it  gives  a  more 
faithful  representation  than  the  LXX,  which  has  been  preferred  by 
several  who  were  not  aware  of  the  facts  mentioned  above.  The 
object  of  repeating  on  the  envelope  the  terms  of  the  deed  was  that 
the  latter  might  be  preserved  from  any  interference,  so  that  if  at 
any  time  a  dispute  arose,  if  the  writing  on  the  envelope  was  in 
any  degree  obliterated  or  there  was  a  suspicion  that  it  had  been 
tampered  with,  the  case  might  be  broken  and  the  deed  itself  con- 
sulted. Even  to  the  present  day,  Dr.  Johns  tells  us,  '  When  the 
envelope  has  been  preserved  unbroken,  the  interior  is  usually 
perfect,  except  where  the  envelope  may  have  adhered  to  it'  (loc. 
cit.,  p.  11). 

11.  The  LXX  reads  simply,  'And  I  took  the  deed  of  the  pur- 


ii8  JEREMIAH  32.  12-14.     J 

purchase,  both  that  which  was  sealed,  ^according  to  the  law 

12  and  custom,  and  that  which  was  open  :  and  I  delivered 
the  deed  of  the  purchase  unto  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah, 
the  son  of  Mahseiah,  in  the  presence  of  Hanamel  mine 
uncle's  souy  and  in  the  presence  of  the  witnesses  that  sub- 
scribed the  deed  of  the  purchase,  before  all  the  Jews  that 

13  sat  in  the  court  of  the  guard.     And  I  charged  Baruch 

14  before  them,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God 

*  fOr,  containing  the  ienns  and  conditions 

chase  which  was  sealed,'  the  rest  of  the  verse  being  omitted. 
Several  modern  scholars  accept  this  text,  and  get  rid  of  the  double 
deed.  It  is  true  that  in  the  next  verse  we  read  of  '  the  deed  of 
the  purchase,'  as  if  there  were  only  one.  But,  in  the  light  of  what 
has  been  already  said,  it  will  be  seen  to  be  quite  natural  that  the 
same  deed  might  be  spoken  of  in  the  singular  or  in  the  plural, 
according  as  it  was  contemplated  as  a  whole  or  in  its  separate 
parts.  There  is  no  thought  of  two  separable  documents,  but  of 
two  combined  together.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
the  clause  following  '  that  which  was  sealed '  should  be  omitted. 
The  margin  is  preferable  to  the  text,  though  'containing'  is  not 
expressed  in  the  Hebrew ;  but  the  suggestion  that  the  deed  itself, 
which  was  sealed  up,  contained  anything  which  was  not  on  the 
envelope  contradicts  the  legal  custom  already  described,  according 
to  which  the  envelope  was  inscribed  with  an  exact  and  complete 
copy  of  the  deed  itself.  The  words  may  have  originated  out  of 
a  mistaken  repetition  of  the  preceding  words,  or  they  may  be 
a  gloss.  If  the  latter,  they  are  presumably  technical  terms. 
Literally  they  mean  '  the  command  and  the  statutes.'  The  former 
term  is  taken  by  Driver  as  the  injunction  '  bidding  the  seller  cede 
possession  of  the  property  ;'  others  translate  'the  offer,' explaining 
this  to  mean  the  description  of  the  field.  The  latter  term  probably 
means  the  conditions  of  purchase. 

12.  Barach :  here  for  the  first  time  mentioned  in  the  book, 
which  we  so  largely  owe  to  his  pious  care.  He  had  for  long 
acted  as  the  prophet's  amanuensis. 

mine  uncle's  son.  The  Hebrew  simply  reads  '  my  uncle,' 
but  the  word  for  'son  of  has  been  accidentally  omitted  ;  it  is  read 
by  the  LXX,  Syriac,  and  about  ten  Hebrew  MSS.  (see  note  on  7). 

in  the  presence  .  .  .  the  guard.  The  care  taken  that  all  the 
legal  formalities  should  be  observed  is  to  be  noticed,  as  well  as 
the  full-sounding  legal  phraseology  in  which  it  is  recorded. 

14.  The  Hebrew  is  clumsy  and  redundant,  but  this  may  be  due 


JEREMIAH  32.  15-17.     JS  119 

of  Israel :  Take  these  deeds,  this  deed  of  the  purchase, 
both  that  which  is  sealed,  and  this  deed  which  is  open, 
and  put  them  in  an  earthen  vessel ;  that  they  may  con- 
tinue many  days.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  15 
God  of  Israel :  Houses  and  fields  and  vineyards  shall  yet 
again  be  bought  in  this  land. 

Now  after  I  had  delivered  the  deed  of  the  purchase  16 
unto  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah,  I  prayed  unto  the  Lord, 
saying,  [S]  Ah  Lord  God!  behold,  thou  hast  made  the  17 

to  the  adoption  of  legal  phraseology.  Even  the  LXX  recognizes 
here  the  open  deed  in  addition  to  that  which  was  sealed  up,  and 
thus  attests  the  fact  which  it  has  previously  obliterated. 

an  earthen  vessel.  The  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  deeds 
were  frequently  'stored  in  pots  of  unbaked  clay.  The  pots,  as 
a  rule,  have  crumbled  away,  but  they  kept  out  the  earth  around  ' 
(Johns,  loc.  cit.,  p.  12).  Here  Baruch  stores  the  deed  '  for  many 
days,'  since  it  will  be  a  long  time  before  the  sign  receives  its  fulfil- 
ment. In  times  of  disturbance  it  was  customary  to  bury  things  for 
safe  custody  ;  the  earthen  vessel  served  this  purpose  very  well. 

16-25.  This  prayer  of  Jeremiah  is  in  the  main  a  later  insertion, 
as  Stade  was  the  first  to  point  out,  and  as  many  (including  even 
Findlay)  have  since  recognized.  Stade  regarded  24,  25  as 
summarizing  Jeremiah's  actual  prayer,  17-23  being  added  at 
a  later  time.  These  verses  are  largely  a  mosaic  of  phrases  we 
meet  with  elsewhere  in  the  book  and  in  Deuteronom}',  and  they 
closely  resemble  the  prayer  in  Neh.  ix.  5-38.  The  long  introduc- 
tion 17-23  is  out  of  proportion  to  the  pra3'er  itself  in  24,  25. 
Moreover  the  confession  of  Yahweh's  omnipotence  in  17  is  strange 
in  view  of  the  question  which  is  put  to  the  prophet  in  27  as  an 
answer  to  his  prayer.  Accordingly  we  should  probably  treat 
17-23  as  late.  But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  should  accept 
Duhm's  view  that  24,  25  should  be  judged  similarly.  These  verses 
are  quite  suitable  to  the  situation,  and  Jeremiah  may  well  have 
uttered  them,  in  spite  of  the  height  his  faith  had  just  reached. 

17.  The  invocation  begins  with  the  confession  of  Yahweh's 
might  as  displayed  in  creation  (17%  then  passes  to  His  mercy  and 
retribution  and  names  His  great  name  (18),  then  affirms  His  all- 
seeing  scrutiny  of  human  conduct,  that  each  may  receive  his 
deserts  (19).  From  these  universal  relations  of  Yahweh,we  pass 
to  His  special  relation  to  Israel,  beginning  with  the  wonders 
wrought  in  Egypt  at  the  Exodus  (20,  21)  and  the  entrance  of 
Israel  on  the  possession  of  Canaan  (22),  and  then  confessing  the 


I20  JEREMIAH  32.  18-20.     S 

heaven  and  the  earth  by  thy  great  power  and  by  thy 
stretched  out  arm  ;  there  is  nothing  too  ^  hard  for  thee  : 

18  which  shewest  mercy  unto  thousands,  and  recompensest 
the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  into  the  bosom  of  their  children 
after  them :    the  great,  the  mighty  God,  the  Lord  of 

19  hosts  is  his  name  :  great  in  counsel,  and  mighty  in  work  : 
whose  eyes  are  open  upon  all  the  ways  of  the  sons  of 
men  ;    to  give  every  one  according  to   his   ways,  and 

20  according  to  the  fruit  of  his  doings  :  which  didst  set 
signs  and  wonders  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  even  unto  this 
day,  b  both  in  Israel  and  among  other  men ;  and  madest 

*  Or,  wonderful  ^  Or,  and 

disobedience  which  has  brought  this  calamity  upon  the  people 
(23).  We  have  thus  a  beautiful  and  well-ordered  description  of 
Yahweh's  attributes  and  work  as  the  later  theology  described  it. 

thy  stretclied  out  arm :  see  note  on  xxvii.  5.  In  21  it  is 
used  in  its  more  usual  connexion  with  a  great  act  of  Divine 
deliverance. 

hard.  The  word  is  used  of  what  lies  outside  the  usual  course 
of  nature  or  events  ;  often  it  bears  the  meaning  '■  wonderful,'  but 
*  hard '  is  preferable  here.  The  LXX  gives  an  inferior  text 
'  hidden  from  thee.' 

18.  unto  thousands.  The  reference  is  clearly  to  the  Decalogue 
(Exod.  XX.  6,  Deut.  v.  10),  the  text  of  which  has  become  so  familiar 
that  the  author  quotes  it  in  this  abbreviated,  allusive  form  in  the 
confidence  that  the  reader  will  supply  the  rest.  The  passage 
means  that  God  shows  mercy  to  thousands  who  belong  to  those 
who  love  Him.  Thus  while  the  sins  of  the  fathers  are  visited 
upon  the  children  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation,  the  principle 
of  solidarity  works  on  a  far  vaster  scale  in  the  bestowment  of 
reward  for  love  of  God  and  observance  of  His  commandments. 

into  the  hosom.  The  folds  on  the  bosom  of  the  Oriental  robe 
served  as  a  pocket;  it  was  large  enough  for  infants  (,Num.  xi.  12) 
or  lambs  (Isa.  xl.  ir)  to  be  carried  in  it.  For  the  phrase  'to  re- 
compense into  the  bosom  '  cf.  Isa.  Ixv,  6,  Ps.  Ixxix.  12. 

19.  For  the  end  of  the  verse  see  note  on  xvii,  10. 

20.  Cf.  Deut.  vi.  22,  Neh.  ix.  10. 

even  unto  this  day.  This  is  difficult,  since  obviously  the 
'signs  and  wonders'  in  Egypt  ceased  at  the  Exodus.  Perhaps 
the  simplest  expedient  is  to  read  '  and  unto  this  day.'  The  ex- 
pression is  in  any  case  somewhat  loose.     Cornill  thinks  it  means 


JEREMIAH  32.  21-25.     SJ  121 

thee  a  name,  as  at  this  day;  and  didst  bring  forth  thy  21 
people  Israel  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  with  signs,  and 
with  wonders,  and  with  a  strong  hand,  and  with  a  stretched 
out  arm,  and  with  great  terror;    and  gavest  them  this  22 
land,  which  thou  didst  swear  to  their  fathers  to  give 
them,  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey  ;   and  they  23 
came  in,  and  possessed  it ;   but  they  obeyed  not  thy 
voice,  neither  walked  in  thy  law ;  they  have  done  nothing 
of  all  that  thou  commandedst  them  to  do  :  therefore  thou 
hast  caused  all  this  evil  to  come  upon  them  :  [j]  behold  24 
the  mounts,  they  are  come  unto  the  city  to  take  it ;  and 
the  city  is  given  into  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans  that 
fight  against  it,  because  of  the  sword,  and  of  the  famine, 
and  of  the  pestilence :    and  what  thou  hast  spoken  is 
come  to  pass ;  and,  behold,  thou  seest  it.     And  thou  25 
hast  said  unto  me,  O  Lord  God,  Buy  thee  the  field  for 

'  which  are  celebrated  unto  this  day,'  but  suggests  that  'in  the  land 
of  Egypt '  may  be  a  gloss. 

21.  Cf.  Deut.  iv.  34,  xxvi.  8.  The  *  terror'  is  the  dread  struck  into 
Egypt  and  the  surrounding  nations  by  the  judgements  of  God  on 
Egypt  and  the  wonders  He  wrought  for  His  people  at  the  Exodus  : 
cf.  Exod.  XV.  14-16;  Deut.  ii.  25;  Joshua  ii.  9-11,  v.  i. 

22.  Cf.  xi.  5.  The  theme  of  this  verse  and  the  following  is  to 
be  found  in  a  very  expanded  form  in  Neh.  ix.  22-35. 

23.  Cf.  xi.  8. 

24.  the  mounts:  cf.  vi.  6,  xxxiii.  4  ;  2  Sam.  xx.  15;  2  Kings 
xix.  32  ;  Isa.  xxxvii.  33  ;  Ezek.  iv.  2,  xvii.  17,  xxvi.  8.  These  were 
earthen  embankments  from  which  the  storming  parties  made  their 
assaults.  This  verse  (if  Jeremiah's)  favours  the  view  that  when 
the  purchase  of  the  field  took  place  the  siege  had  been  resumed. 

is  given:  a  perfect  of  certainty  ;  the  meaning  is  not  that  the 
Babylonians  had  already  captured  the  city,  but  that  they  would 
undoubtedly  do  so,  aided  as  they  were  by  the  famine  and  plague 
which  were  decimating  the  defenders. 

25.  It  would  be  too  prosaic  to  object  that  God  had  not  said  this  ; 
Jeremiah  had  understood  Him  to  mean  this  by  the  request  his  cousin 
had  made.  The  LXX  after  '  money '  has  an  addition.  It  reads  : 
'  So  I  wrote  the  deed,  and  sealed  it,  and  called  witnesses.'  This  may 
be  the  original  text. 


122  JEREMIAH  32.  afS.     J 

money,  and  call  witnesses  ;   whereas  the  city  is  given 
into  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans. 
26      Then  came  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  Jeremiah,  say- 


26-44.  We  have  now  the  answer  of  Yahweh  to  Jeremiah's 
prayer.  That  it  is,  as  a  whole,  a  later  composition  lies  almost  on 
the  surface.  It  is  largely  irrelevant  to  the  situation.  "We  have 
an  announcement  of  Yahweh's  intention  to  destroy  Jerusalem  on 
account  of  the  sins  of  the  people  from  its  earliest  days  (28-35). 
But  this  had  for  long  been  the  theme  of  Jeremiah's  preaching,  and 
had  the  section  occurred  in  one  of  his  own  addresses  to  the  people 
it  would,  so  far  as  its  general  contents  go,  and  its  expression,  have 
seemed  quite  suitable.  But  that  in  answer  to  his  question  as  to 
the  purchase  of  the  land  Yahweh  should  be  represented  as  com- 
municating to  Jeremiah  what  for  many  years  the  prophet  had  been 
saying,  and  express  it  in  the  same  language  as  he  had  been  using, 
is  not  easily  reconcilable  with  the  authenticity  of  these  verses. 
They  are  a  late  insertion  put  together,  presumably  by  the  editor, 
out  of  Jeremianic  phrases.  These  objections  do  not  lie  to  the 
same  extent  against  36-44.  They  are  relevant  to  the  question 
which  the  prophet  has  laid  before  God,  and  are  less  conventional 
in  style.  At  the  same  time  there  are  features  which  are  difficult 
to  harmonize  with  the  actual  situation  of  Jeremiah.  In  36,  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  text,  the  people  ('ye  say')  and  not  Jeremiah 
merely,  speak  of  the  city  as  given  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of 
Babylon,  though  this  does  not  seem  to  have  been  their  belief  at  the 
time.  But  the  LXX  '  thou  sayest '  should  probably  be  accepted, 
and  the  verse  is  then  free  from  objection.  Verse  43  seems  to  pre- 
suppose that  the  exile  had  already  taken  place,  and  37  looks  for 
a  return  from  a  wide  dispersion.  It  is  difficult,  accordingly,  to 
regard  the  whole  passage  as  dating  from  the  tenth  year  of  Zede- 
kiah.  But  if  the  prayer  in  24,  25  was  uttered  by  Jeremiah  in  the 
circumstances  recorded,  it  is  natural  to  conclude  that  the  answer 
belongs  to  the  same  time.  An  answer  to  the  question  he  lays  before 
Yahweh  is  given  in  43,  44,  and  there  is  no  substantial  reason  for  dis- 
puting the  authenticity  of  the  latter  verse,  though,  as  we  have  seen,43 
apparently  reflects  a  later  situation.  But  with  this  we  should  take 
26,  27,  which  form  a  necessary  introduction.  Even  so  44  is  rather 
abrupt.  The  present  writer  is  therefore  inclined  to  think  that,  while 
28-35  is  wholly  editorial,  the  rest  of  the  section  is  substantially 
Jeremianic,  but  committed  to  writing  in  its  present  form  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  deportation  of  the  captives  had 
taken  place.  Even  the  reference  to  the  dispersion  is  not  neces- 
sarily impossible  on  Jeremiah's  lips  :  cf.  xxiii.  3,  7,  8,  xxiv.  9. 

26.  unto  Jeremiah  :  read,  with  the  LXX,  unto  n^e. 


JEREMIAH  32.  27-31.     JS  123 

ing,  Behold,  I  am  tlie  Lord,  the  God  of  all  flesh  :  is  27 
there  any  thing  too  hard  for  me? 

[Sj  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Behold,  I  will  28 
give  this  city  into  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  into 
the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon,  and  he 
shall  take  it :  and  the  Chaldeans,  that  fight  against  this  29 
city,  shall  come  and  set  this  city  on  fire,  and  burn  it, 
with  the  houses,  upon  whose  roofs  they  have  offered 
incense  unto  Baal,  and  poured  out  drink  offerings  unto 
other  gods,  to  provoke  me  to  anger.     For  the  children  30 
of  Israel  and  the  children  of  Judah  have  only  done  that 
which  was  evil  in  my  sight  from  their  youth  :  for  the 
children  of  Israel  have  only  provoked  me  to  anger  with 
the  w^ork  of  their  hands,  saith  the  Lord.     For  this  city  31 

27.  This  verse  has  been  anticipated  by  17  (see  notes),  but  it  is 
quite  suitable  to  the  situation,  and  we  should  rather  infer  that  17 
is  secondary  than  pass  this  judgement  on  both  alike. 

28.  The  introductory  formula,  '  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord,' 
would  be  in  place  in  an  address  by  the  prophet ;  it  is  quite  un- 
suitable in  an  answer  given  by  Yahweh  Himself  to  the  prophet. 
The  opening  sentence  is  an  expansion  of  3:  the  LXX  simply 
reproduces  that  verse. 

29.  Cf.  xix.  13,  xxi.  10. 

30.  The  reference  to  the  sin  of  Israel  alongside  of  the  sin  of 
Judah,  while  not  strictly  relevant  to  the  threat  of  judgement  on 
the  latter,  may  pass,  since  the  writer  is  looking  back  on  the  whole 
history  of  the  people.  But  the  verdict,  while  it  does  not  abso- 
lutely contradict  ii.  2,  inasmuch  as  the  early  days  in  Canaan 
might  be  regarded  as  still  belonging  to  the  nation's  youth,  agrees 
better  with  Ezekiel's  estimate  than  Jeremiah's  :  cf.  Ezek.  xx.  5- 
26.  The  second  half  of  the  verse  is  absent  from  the  LXX,  and 
the  reference  to  '  the  children  of  Israel'  favours  the  omission.  If 
it  is  used  in  the  same  restricted  sense  as  in  the  former  part  of  the 
verse,  the  omission  of  Judah  is  unaccountable,  since  the  writer  is 
concerned  especially  with  it.  If,  however,  it  includes  the 
southern  as  well  as  the  northern  tribes,  it  is  difficult  to  think 
that  the  writer  would  use  the  designation  in  such  different  senses 
in  consecutive  clauses. 

31.  The  passage  reads  as  if  the  author  thought  that  the  Israelites 
built  Jerusalem.     It  is  hardly  credible  that  he  did  so  ;  the  exprcs- 


124  JEREMIAH  32.  32-36.     SJ 

hath  been  to  me  a  provocation  of  mine  anger  and  of  my 
fury  from  the  day  that  they  built  it  even  unto  this  day  ; 

32  that  I  should  remove  it  from  before  my  face  :  because 
of  all  the  evil  of  the  children  of  Israel  and  of  the  children 
of  Judah,  which  they  have  done  to  provoke  me  to  anger, 
they,  their  kings,  their  princes,  their  priests,  and  their 
prophets,  and  the  men  of  Judah,  and  the  inhabitants  of 

33  Jerusalem.  And  they  have  turned  unto  me  the  back, 
and  not  the  face :  and  though  I  taught  them,  rising  up 
early  and  teaching  them,  yet  they  have  not  hearkened 

34  to  receive  instruction.  But  they  set  their  abominations 
in  the  house  which  is  called  by  my  name,  to  defile  it. 

35  And  they  built  the  high  places  of  Baal,  which  are  in  the 
valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  to  cause  their  sons  and 
their  daughters  to  pass  through  the  fire  unto  Molech ; 
which  I  commanded  them  not,  neither  came  it  into  my 
^  mind,  that  they  should  do  this  abomination ;  to  cause 
Judah  to  sin. 

36  [J]  And  now  therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of 

*  Heb.  heart. 

sion  is  loose.  Probably  he  is  under  the  influence  of  Ezekiel's 
description  of  the  heathen  origin  of  Jerusalem  (Ezek.  xvi.  3-6). 
According  to  this  prophet,  it  well  maintained  a  character  har- 
monious with  this  origin  after  the  Israelites  gained  possession  of 
it.  It  is  interesting  to  see  how  the  writer  passes  to  and  fro  from 
city  (28,  29,  31)  to  people  (30,  32,  33). 

32,  33.  For32^  cf.  xi.  17  ;  for  32**,  33* cf.  ii.  26,  27  ;  for  33^  cf. 
vii.  13,  25,  XXV.  3,  4. 

34,  35.  These  verses  are  largely  identical  with  vii.  30'',  31  (see 
the  notes).  We  have  in  that  passage  *  the  high  places  of  Topheth,' 
and  *  to  burn  their  sons  and  their  daughters  in  the  fire.'  Further, 
it  concludes  with  <  neither  came  it  into  my  mind.*  On  Molech 
see  the  note  on  vii.  31  (vol.  i,  p.  155).  Our  passage  agrees  with 
xix.  5  in  speaking  of '  the  high  places  of  Baal '  (see  vol.  i,  p.  237). 

36.  The  opening  words  can  hardly  be  in  their  original  form, 
since  Yahweh  would  not  speak  of  Himself  in  this  way  (see  note  on 
28).     *  Therefore '  is  also  inappropriate  in  this  connexion,  but  it 


JEREMIAH  32.  37-40.     J  125 

Israel,  concerning  this  city,  whereof  ye  say,  It  is  given  into 
the  hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon  by  the  sword,  and  by  the 
fcimine,  and  by  the  pestilence  :  Behold,  I  will  gather  them  37 
out  of  all  the  countries,  whither  I  have  driven  them  in 
mine  anger,  and  in  my  fury,  and  in  great  wrath ;  and 
I  will  bring  them  again  unto  this  place,  and  I  will  cause 
them  to  dwell  safely :  and  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  38 
I  will  be  their  God :  and  I  will  give  them  one  heart  and  39 
one  way,  that  they  may  fear  me  for  ever ;  for  the  good  of 
them,  and  of  their  children  after  them :  and  I  will  make  40 
an  everlasting  covenant  with  them,  that  I  will  not  turn 
away  ^  from  them,  to  do  them  good ;  and  I  will  put  my 

*  Heh./rom  afier  them. 

is  unobjectionable  when  28-35  have  been  removed.  It  is  a  little 
curious  that  this  verse  should  begin  to  speak  of  the  city,  and  that 
in  37  we  should  pass  abruptly  to  the  people  in  the  dispersion. 

ye  say :  see  the  note  on  26-44  (p.  122).  The  LXX  '  thou 
sayest'  harmonizes  with  24;  the  Hebrew  seems  to  have  been 
assimilated  to  xxxiii.  10. 

37.  Giesebrecht  suggests  that  originally  42  stood  before  37-41. 
For  37*  cf.  xxiii.  3,  and  for  the  last  clause  cf.  xxiii.  6. 

38.  Cf.  xxxi.  33. 

39.  The  LXX  reads  *  another  way  and  another  heart;'  the 
difference  between  '  one '  and  *  another '  in  Hebrew  is  infinite- 
simal, and  it  is  impossible  to  say  with  certainty  which  is  the 
original.  We  may  compare  Ezek.  xi.  19,  'And  I  will  give  them 
one  heart,  and  I  will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you  ; '  the  parallel 
passage  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26,  however,  reads  *A  new  heart  also  will 
I  give  3'ou,  and  a.  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you.'  It  is  on  the 
whole  probable  that  we  should  retain  the  Hebrew  here.  All 
hearts  would  be  of  one  accord  to  adopt  the  same  way  of  life,  and 
that  the  way  along  which  God  called  them  to  walk.  For  the  rest 
of  the  verse  cf.  Deut.  iv.  10,  vi.  24. 

40.  and  I  will  .  .  .  with  them:  cf.  Isa.  Iv.  3  ;  Ezek.  xvi.  60, 
xxxvii.  26.  The  term  'new  covenant'  is  not  actually  used,  but 
the  same  thing  is  meant ;  and  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  expresses 
the  same  thought  as  xxxi.  33^  in  another  form.  The  fear  of  God 
is  implanted  by  God  Himself  in  the  heart,  that  they  may  not  go 
astray  from  Him. 

I  will  not  turn  away  from  them.   As  the  margin  says,  the 


126  JEREMIAH  32.  41-44.     J 

fear  in  their  hearts,  that  they  shall  not  depart  from  me. 

41  Yea,  I  will  rejoice  over  them  to  do  them  good,  and  I  will 
plant  them  in  this  land  ''^assuredly  with  my  whole  heart  and 

42  with  my  whole  soul.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Like  as 
I  have  brought  all  this  great  evil  upon  this  people,  so  will 
I  bring  upon  them  all  the  good  that  I  have  promised 

43  them.  And  fields  shall  be  bought  in  this  land,  whereof  ye 
say,  It  is  desolate,  without  man  or  beast ;  it  is  given  into 

44  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans.     Men  shall  buy  fields  for 

*  Heb.  in  truth. 

Hebrew  means  '  from  after  them.'  Giesebrecht  finds  this  surprising, 
since  elsewhere  the  people  is  represented  as  following  Yahweh,  not 
Yahweh  as  following  the  people.  Accordingly  he  suggests  '  I  will 
not  cease  from  having  compassion  upon  them.'  Cornill  justifies 
the  present  text  by  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxiii.  14  (Heb.  15),  where 
we  read  'that  he  see  no  unclean  thing  in  thee,  and  turn  away  from 
after  thee.'  And,  as  he  points  out  further,  Giesebrecht's  emenda- 
tion eliminates  the  antithetic  parallelism  with  ♦  they  shall  not  de- 
part from  me '  at  the  close  of  the  verse. 

to  do  tliem  good.  If  these  words  belong  to  the  true  text,  it 
would  be  better  to  omit  the  comma  before  them,  and  connect 
closely  with  the  preceding  clause,  the  sense  being  that  Yahweh 
will  not  cease  from  following  them  to  do  them  good.  But  they 
are  absent  from  the  LXX  and  are  best  omitted,  especially  as  we 
have  not  only  had  a  similar  clause  in  39,  but  have  practically  the 
same  words  in  41,  from  which  the  insertion  in  our  verse  has  prob- 
ably been  made. 

41.  The  former  part  of  the  verse  is  perhaps  modelled  on  Deut. 
xxviii.  63  :  cf  xxx.  9 ;  Isa.  Ixii.  5,  Ixv.  19  ;  Zeph.  iii.  17. 

I  will  plant  them :  cf.  xxiv.  6,  xxxi.  27,  28. 
with  my  whole  heart  and  with  my  whole  soul.    The  only 
case  in  which  this  expression  is  used  with  reference  to  God. 

42.  This  repeats  in  another  form  the  thought  of  xxxi.  28. 

43.  This  verse  seems  to  presuppose  that  the  exile  had  been 
already  accomplished,  so  that  the  land  lies  desolate.  At  the  same 
time,  according  to  the  Hebrew  text,  the  verse  was  written  in 
Palestine  ('this  land'),  so  that  its  Jeremianic  origin  is  very 
dubious  ;  it  would  be  easier  to  accept  it  if,  with  the  LXX,  we  read 
*  the  land.'  For  '  ye  say '  the  LXX,  as  in  36,  reads  '  thou  sayest,' 
but  the  grounds  for  accepting  it  here  are  less  cogent  than  in  36. 

44.  For  the  districts  enumerated  in  this  verse  see  note  on  xvii. 
26,  where  there  is  a  similar  enumeration  but  in  a  somewhat  different 


JEREMIAH  32.  44— 33.  I.     JR  127 

money,  and  subscribe  the  deeds,  and  seal  them,  and  call 
witnesses,  in  the  land  of  Benjamin,  and  in  the  places  about 
Jerusalem,  and  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in  the  cities  of 
the  hill  country,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  lowland,  and  in 
the  cities  of  the  South  :  for  I  will  cause  their  captivity 
to  return,  saith  the  Lord. 

[R]  Moreover  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  Jere-  33 

order.  Here  'the  land  of  Benjamin'  stands  first,  since  the  field 
Jeremiah  had  bought  was  situated  in  it.  The  fullness  of  detail  is 
noticeable  also  in  the  mention  of  the  legal  formalities  accompany- 
ing a  sale. 

xxxiii.  Renewed  Promises  of  Restoration  and  Blessedness. 

This  section  is  closely  connected  with  xxxii,  and,  like  it,  raises 
serious  critical  problems.  The  chapter  falls  into  two  main  divis- 
ions :  (a)  1-13,  (b)  14-26.  The  latter  is  omitted  in  the  LXX,  and 
its  Jeremianic  authorship  is  surrendered  by  most  recent  scholars. 
The  evidence  of  the  LXX  is  here  very  weighty.  We  can  see  no 
sound  reason  why  the  translator  should  have  omitted  the  passage 
if  it  had  been  in  his  Hebrew  text ;  it  is  therefore  likely  that  it  is 
a  very  late  addition.  The  omission  has  been  explained  as  due  to 
its  numerous  repetitions  of  passages  found  elsewhere,  and  the  non- 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecies  with  reference  to  David  and  his 
family  and  the  Levites.  But  the  translator  does  not  make  a  practice 
of  striking  out  repetitions  (see  vol.  i,  p.  68),  and  if  he  had  omitted 
promises  which  in  his  time  had  not  been  fulfilled,  his  handling  of 
the  book  would  have  been  drastic  indeed.  The  fact  that  promises 
had  not  been  fulfilled  did  not  mean  that  their  fulfilment  would 
never  come.  The  Jews  of  the  post-exilic  period  turned  with 
peculiar  interest  to  the  glowing  prophecies  of  future  happiness 
which  stood  in  such  inviting  contrast  to  their  unhappy  state  ; 
their  temptation  was  not  to  eliminate  but  to  add  such  passages. 
The  repetitions  which  the  passage  contains  are  not  favourable  to 
its  authenticitj',  nor  yet  the  prominence  given  to  the  Levitical 
priests,  which  has  no  parallel  in  Jeremiah's  own  writing. 

The  former  part  of  the  chapter  (1-13)  has  been  very  generally 
accepted  as  Jeremiah's,  apart  from  2,  3.  Duhm  regards  1-13  as 
late,  and  is  followed  by  Cornill,  so  that  these  scholars  recognize 
nothing  as  Jeremiah's  in  xxxii,  xxxiii  beyond  xxxii.  6-15.  Schmidt 
independently  assumes  much  the  same  position.  This  position 
we  have  not  been  able  to  adopt  with  reference  to  xxxii,  and  the 
case  with  xxxiii.  1-13  is  similar.  We  should  probably  recognize 
a  Jeremianic  basis  which  has  been  worked  over  by  the  editor. 


128  JEREMIAH  33.  2.     RS 

miah  the  second  time,  while  he  was  yet  shut  up  in  the  court 
2  of  the  guard,  saying,  [s]  Thus  saith  the  Lord  that  doeth 

Even  in  its  present  form,  however,  it  is  earlier  than  14-26,  v^hich 
from  its  absence  in  the  LXX  we  must  infer  to  be  one  of  the  latest 
elements  in  the  book. 

xxxiii.  I.  This  is  the  second  revelation  which  came  to  Jeremiah 
in  the  court  of  the  guard. 

2,  3.  Yahweh,  the  accomplisher  of  His  purpose,  says  :  Call  and 
I  will  answer,  and  disclose  unknown  secrets. 

4-9.  The  houses  are  being  broken  down  to  form  defences 
against  the  assaults  of  the  Chaldeans,  but  the  slain  of  Yahweh  will 
be  many.  Yet  Yahweh  will  heal  His  people,  restore  Israel  and 
Judah,  cleanse  them  from  all  their  guilt,  and  make  Jerusalem  so 
glorious  that  the  nations  will  fear. 

10-13.  Once  more  the  land  now  desolate  shall  ring  with 
rejoicing,  and  life  will  be  resumed  in  all  its  fullness  as  of  yore.  All 
over  the  country  there  shall  be  the  homesteads  of  shepherds, 
guarding  their  flocks. 

14-18.  In  the  days  to  come  Yahweh  will  raise  up  a  righteous 
shoot  to  David,  who  shall  reign  as  a  righteous  King  over  Judah 
and  Israel,  and  his  name  shall  be  '  Yahweh  is  our  righteousness.* 
For  David  shall  never  fail  of  a  successor  on  the  throne  of  Israel, 
nor  the  Levitical  priests  of  one  to  offer  sacrifice. 

19-22.  If  Yahweh's  covenant  with  day  and  night  should  be 
broken,  then  it  may  be  broken  with  David  and  with  the  Levitical 
priests.  As  the  stars  cannot  be  numbered  nor  the  sand  measured, 
so  shall  the  seed  of  David  and  the  Levites  be  multiplied. 

23-26.  In  answer  to  the  complaint  that  Yahweh  has  cast  off 
His  people,  He  affirms  that  only  when  day  and  night  cease,  or  the 
ordinances  of  heaven  and  earth,  will  He  cast  away  the  seed  of 
Jacob,  or  the  house  of  David. 

xxxiii.  1.     See  note  on  xxxii.  2. 

2,  3.  On  account  of  their  Deutero-Isaianic  phraseology,  Movers 
and  Hitzig  assigned  these  verses  to  the  Second  Isaiah.  Graf  rejected 
this,  as  he  rejected  the  similar  treatment  of  xxx,  xxxi,  but  he 
admits  that  '  they  make  the  impression  that  they  are  an  insertion 
by  a  later  hand.'  This  judgement  has  been  accepted  by  a  large 
number  of  scholars.  Their  elimination  of  it  was  of  course  bound 
up  with  the  probably  correct  view  that  1-13  was  as  a  whole  the 
work  of  Jeremiah.  Naturally  if  the  whole  section  is  late,  as  Duhm 
thinks,  there  is  no  necessity  to  regard  2,  3  as  an  insertion.  The 
reference  to  what  follows  as  things  previously  unknown  does  not 
suit  the  contents  of  4-13,  since  they  do  not  contain  anything 
beyond  what  may  be  found  in  xxxi,  xxxii. 

thaX  doeth  it.     If  the  text  is  right,  there  may  be  an  allusion 


JEREMIAH   33.  3H-     SJ  129 

it,  tlie  Lord  that  formeth  it  to  establish  it;  the  Lord  is 
his  name  :  Call  unto  me,  and  I  will  answer  thee,  and  will  3 
shew  thee  great  things,  and  -'^ difficult,  which  thou  knowest 
not.     [j]  For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  con-  4 

*  Heb.  fenced  hi. 

to  Isa.  xxli.  II  (this  passage  seems  to  have  been  in  the  author's 
mind  :  cf.  4,  5  with  Isa.  xxii.  10),  where  we  have  (in  the  Hebrew) 
the  same  indefinite  mode  of  reference,  '  that  had  done  it,'  '  that 
fashioned  it,'  i.  e.  His  purpose.  But  the  text  here  is  otherwise 
not  free  from  objection  ;  and  the  LXX  reading,  '  who  made  the 
earth  and  formed  it  to  establish  it,'  is  to  be  preferred  :  cf.  Isa.  xlv. 
18.  The  word  'to  form'  is  frequently  used  in  II  Isaiah  in 
parallelism  with  '  make  ; '  for  '  Yahweh  is  his  name '  cf.  *  Yahweh 
of  hosts  is  his  name,'  Isa.  xlvii.  4,  xlviii.  2,  li.  15,  liv.  5,  but  also 
Jer.  xxxi.  35,  xxxii.  18,  and  the  creation  passages  in  the  Book  of 
Amos  (iv.  13,  v.  8,  ix.  6)  which  many  scholars  consider  to  be  late. 
In  Jer.  x.  1-16,  a  passage  which  also  has  marked  affinities  with 
II  Isaiah,  we  find  the  same  turn  of  phrase  in  a  context  which 
emphasizes  the  thought  of  Yahweh  as  the  Creator,  '  for  he  is  the 
former  of  all  things  ;  and  Israel  is  the  tribe  of  his  inheritance: 
the  Lord  of  hosts  is  his  name  '  (x.  16). 

The  third  verse  is  closely  parallel  to  Isa.  xlviii.  6'' :  *  I  have 
shewed  thee  new  things  from  this  time,  even  hidden  things,  which 
thou  hast  not  known.'  It  is  not  unlikely  that,  as  several  scholars 
following  Ewald  believe,  we  should,  with  some  Hebrew  MSS., 
read  '  hidden  '  for  '  difficult '  here,  the  two  words  difiering  only 
by  a  single  consonant  (i.  e.  n^tsiiroth  for  b^tstiroth^.  The  word 
rendered  '  difficult  '  means  '  inaccessible,'  but  it  is  used  elsewhere 
of  cities. 

4,  5.  The  historical  situation  here  reflected  is  the  time  of  the 
siege  as  indicated  in  i,  so  that  the  verses  may  well  be  Jeremiah's. 
But  the  passage  is  very  difficult  in  its  present  form,  and  unques- 
tionably corrupt.  Graf,  in  spite  of  his  loyalty  to  the  Hebrew  text, 
closes  his  long  enumeration  and  discussion  of  the  various  sugges- 
tions made  with  the  words  *One  must  renounce  a  restoration  and 
satisfactory  explanation  of  the  plainly  corrupt  passage'  (p.  418). 
The  reference  to  the  houses  is  itself  strange,  since  we  do  not 
hear  that  they  were  destroyed  because  on  their  roofs  idolatrous 
sacrifice  had  been  ofi'ered  (xix.  13,  xxxii.  29;,  which  would  have 
formed  a  good  contrast  with  the  restoration  of  the  cit}',  but  simply 
of  their  destruction  to  furnish  materials  for  the  defence  (cf.  Isa, 
xxii.  10%  for  which  the  kings'  houses  would  not  have  been 
expected  to  be  employed.  But,  apart  from  this,  the  present  text 
is  impossible,  as  indeed  is  clear  from  the  R.V.  'They  come' 
II  K 


I30  JEREMIAH  33.  4.     J 

cerning  the  nouses  of  this  city,  and  concerning  the  houses 

obviously  cannot  refer  to  the  houses,  yet  that  is  the  grammatical 
sense.  Even  if  we  strain  the  words  to  mean  the  inhabitants,  we 
not  only  do  unjustifiable  violence  to  the  language,  but  we  do  not 
gain  a  good  sense.  The  writer  should  have  said  '  They  go  out,' 
and  there  is  no  point  in  the  mention  of  the  houses.  If  this  sense 
had  been  intended,  it  should  have  been  expressed  in  a  much  simpler 
way,  such  as  '  the  houses  of  this  city  .  .  .  against  the  swords. 
And  their  inhabitants  go  out  to  fight,'  &c.  The  easiest  expedient 
is  to  omit  the  particle  rendered  '  with,'  and  translate  '  The 
Chaldeans  are  coming  to  fight.'  This  gets  rid  of  the  difficulty 
caused  by  the  apparent  reference  in  '  They  come  '  to  the  houses, 
and  '  come  '  is  the  appropriate  verb  for  the  attack  of  the  besieging 
party.  It  is  still  surprising  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  introduc- 
tion suggests  an  oracle  specially  devoted  to  '  the  houses,'  that  there 
is  no  reference  to  them  specifically  in  the  sequel,  though  the 
bringing  of  new  flesh  on  the  city  (6)  is  a  figurative  way  of  saying 
that  her  breaches  are  made  good.  Such  breaches,  however,  are 
in  the  main  those  caused  by  the  enemy  when  the  city  had  been 
captured,  not  those  made  by  the  defenders.  The  other  attempts 
to  restore  the  passage  to  its  original  form  do  not  seem  any  more 
satisfactory.  Duhm  omits  all  after  '  broken  down '  to  '  Chaldeans,' 
and  points  the  next  word  differently  and  gets  the  sense  'which 
are  broken  down  and  filled  with  the  dead  bodies,'  &c.  He  supposes 
that  the  author  of  this  insertion  took  objection  to  the  statement  that 
the  houses  were  broken  down  while  the  city  was  still  uncaptured 
and  added  these  words  as  an  explanation.  The  insertion  itself 
is  emended  by  him  '  for  the  mounts  and  bulwarks,  when  they 
began  to  fight  with  the  Chaldeans.'  This  very  clever  restoration 
is  open  to  criticism  in  detail,  but  it  is  too  violent  to  inspire  confi- 
dence, and  the  mounds  are  not  represented  elsewhere  as  used 
for  defence  but  only  for  attack.  Cornill  suggested  a  radical 
reconstruction  in  the  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament^  and  has 
virtually  repeated  it  in  his  commentary  :  'which  are  broken  down, 
against  which  the  Chaldeans  come  with  mounds  and  swords  to 
fight  and  to  fill  with  the  dead  bodies,'  &c.  This  gives  a  fairly 
satisfactory  sense,  but  it  is  secured  at  the  cost  of  rearranging  and 
to  some  extent  rewriting  the  passage.  But,  like  Duhm's  sugges- 
tion, it  does  not  remove  the  difficulty  previously  mentioned,  that 
the  houses  receive  a  prominence  when  the  subject-matter  of  the 
oracle  is  announced  which  is  not  justified  by  the  sequel.  The 
present  writer  is  accordingly  driven  to  the  view  that  the  difficulty 
has  been  created  not  by  insertion  but  by  accidental  omission  ;  he 
suspects  that  several  words  have  fallen  out  after  '  broken  down  ' 
or  possibly  after  *  sword,'  and  that  the  attempt  to  restore  sense  to 
the  passage  thus  mutilated  has  possibly  led  to  further  corruption. 


JEREMIAH  33.  5-0.     J  131 

of  the  kings  of  Jiidah,  which  are  broken  down  to  make 
a  defence  against  the  mounts,  and  against  the  sword  :  They  ? 
come  to  fight  with  the  Chaldeans,  but  it  is  to  fill  them  with 
the  dead  bodies  of  men,  whom  I  have  slain  in  mine  anger 
and  in  my  fury,  and  for  all  whose  wickedness  I  have  hid 
my  face  from  this  city.     Behold,  I  will  bring  it  ^  health  and  6 
cure,  and  I  will  cure  them ;  and  I  will  reveal  unto  them 
abundance  of  peace  and  truth.     And  I  will  cause  the  cap-  7 
tivity  of  Judah  and  the  captivity  of  Israel  to  return,  and 
will  build  them,  as  at  the  first.     And  I  will  cleanse  them  8 
from  all  their  iniquity,  whereby  they  have  sinned  against 
me ;  and  I  wdll  pardon  all  their  iniquities,  whereby  they 
have  sinned  against  me,  and  whereby  they  have  trans- 
gressed against  me.     And  this  city  shall  be  to    me  for  9 
^  Or,  healing 

Presumably  the  oracle  dates  from  a  time  when  the  siege  had  been 
renewed  and  houses  were  pulled  down  to  strengthen  the  defence ; 
and  affirmed  that  though  this  had  happened,  and  the  Chaldeans 
were  coming  to  heap  high  the  dead  bodies  of  the  victims  of 
Yahweh's  wrath,  yet  He  would  bring  back  fresh  flesh  to  heal  the 
wound  of  Zion. 

6.  health:  rather  fresh  flesh:  see  note  on  viii.  22. 

cure  them :  several  read  '  cure  her,'  which  may  be  attested 
by  the  LXX,  though  the  clause  is  in  a  different  place  and  may  be 
an  insertion  in  its  text. 

abnndance.  If  the  text  is  correct  we  must  suppose  that  the 
word,  which  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  this  sense,  is  an  Aramaism. 
But  the  versions  do  not  confirm  the  reading,  and  the  text  is 
probably  corrupt.  Rothstein  suggests  'abodes'  (/a//  m^'-onoih  for 
Idhem  'aihereth).  but  Duhm's  suggestion  *  treasures'  {'■dthidoth  as 
in  Isa.  X.  13)  is  nearer  the  Hebrew  and  suits  '  reveal '  admirably, 
since  'treasure  '  is  usually  something  which  is  hidden. 

peace  and  truth :  i.  e.  peace  and  stability  ;  but  perhaps  we 
should  read,  as  in  xiv.  13,  'peace  of  truth,'  i.e.  assured  peace. 

7.  as  at  the  first :  i.  e.  before  the  disruption  of  the  kingdom  ;  the 
reigns  of  David  and  Solomon  are  probably  in  the  writer's  mind  : 
cf.  Isa.  i.  26. 

8.  Cf.  xxxi.  34,  Isa.  iv.  4,  but  especially  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25, 

9.  Cf.  xiii.  II.  The  emotion  aroused  in  the  nations  by  the  ex- 
altation of  Zion  is  apparently  one  of  dread,  just  as  the  wonders  of 

K  2 


132  JEREMIAH  33.  10-12.     JS 

a  name  of  jo)^  for  a  praise  and  for  a  glory,  before  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  which  shall  hear  all  the  good  that  I  do 
unto  them,  and  shall  fear  and  tremble  for  all  the  good  and 

10  for  all  the  peace  that  I  procure  unto  it.  [S]Thus  saith  the 
Lord  :  Yet  again  there  shall  be  heard  in  this  place, 
whereof  ye  say,  It  is  waste,  without  man  and  without  beast, 
even  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem, 
that  are  desolate,  without  man  and  without  inhabitant  and 

J I  without  beast,  the  voice  of  joy  and  the  voice  of  gladness, 
the  voice  of  the  bridegroom  and  the  voice  of  the  bride,  the 
voice  of  them  that  say.  Give  thanks  to  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
for  the  Lord  is  good,  for  his  mercy  endiireth  for  ever : 
and  of  them  that  bring  sacrifices  of  thanksgiving  into  the 
house  of  the  Lord.     For  I  wmII  cause  the  captivity  of  the 

12  land  to  return  as  at  the  first,  saith  the  Lord.  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  of  hosts  :  Yet  again  shall  there  be  in  this  place, 

the  Exodus  period  struck  terror  into  Eg3'pt  and  the  peoples  of 
Canaan  :  see  on  xxxii.  20,  21.  It  is  possible  that  pleasure  rather 
than  dread  is  intended  (cf.  Isa.  Ix.  5),  but  improbable. 

10,  11  presuppose  that  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  has  taken  place, 
and  that  the  land  has  been  laid  waste.  The  opening  clauses  of 
II*  contain  the  reversal  of  what  we  read  in  vii.  34,  xvi.  9,  xxv. 
10.  The  liturgical  formula, '  Give  thanks  ...  for  ever,'  is  frequent 
in  the  later  Psalms.  This  in  itself  would  not  necessarily  stamp 
our  passage  as  late  ;  it  is,  indeed,  quite  possible  that  the  formula 
may  have  been  ancient,  but  if  so  we  should  have  expected  to  find 
it  in  the  earlier  psalms.  The  reference  to  the  thanksgiving  offer- 
ing is  almost  identical  with  a  similar  reference  in  xvii.  26,  which 
is  a  late  passage  (see  pp.  225,  226).  And  the  repetition  of  7  in 
the  last  clause,  though  in  a  briefer  form,  is  strange. 

12,  13.  The  same  situation  as  in  10,  11.  The  verses  remind  us 
of  xxxi.  2-6,  and  are  partly  identical  with  xvii.  26,  xxxii.  43,  44 
(see  the  notes).  The  writer,  as  he  looks  on  the  wasted  countrj', 
sees  it  in  imagination  once  more  dotted  with  the  shepherds" 
homesteads,  and  the  flocks  reclining  at  noon  (Song  of  Songs  i.  7) 
or  passing  along  as  their  keepers  count  them  to  see  that  none  is 
missing.  The  idyllic  picture  would  have  been  congenial  to  Jere- 
miah's tastes  and  ideals  :  it  is  questionable,,  however,  whether  we 
really  owe  it  to  him. 


JEREMIAH  33.  13-1S.     S  133 

which  is  waste,  without  man  and  without  beast,  and  in  all 
the  cities  thereof,  an  habitation  of  shepherds  causing  their 
flocks  to  lie  down.  In  the  cities  of  the  hill  country,  in  the  '3 
cities  of  the  lowland,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  South,  and  in 
the  land  of  Benjamin,  and  in  the  places  about  Jerusalem, 
and  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  shall  the  flocks  again  pass  under 
the  hands  of  him  that  telleth  them,  saith  the  Lord. 

Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  per-  14 
form  that  good  word  which  I  have  spoken  concerning  the 
house  of  Israel  and  concerning  the  house  of  Judah.     In  15 
those  days,  and  at  that  time,  will  I  cause  a  ^  Branch  of  right- 
eousness to  grow  up  unto  David  ;  and  he  shall  execute 
judgement  and  righteousness  in  the  land.     In  those  days  16 
shall  Judah  be  saved,  and  Jerusalem  shall  dwell  safely : 
and  this  is  t/te  name  whereby  she  shall  be  called,  The 
Lord  is  our  righteousness.     For  thus  saith  the  Lord:  17 
'^ David  shall  never  want  a  man  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
the  house  of  Israel ;  neither  shall  the  priests  the  Levites  i  S 
want  a  man  before  me  to  offer  burnt  offerings,  and  to 
"  See  ch.  xxiii.  5.         ^  Heb.  There  shall  not  be  cut  off  from  David. 

14-16.  This  passage  is  largely  repeated  from  xxiii.  5,  6.  on 
which  see  vol.  i,  pp.  260-2,  with  a  touch  introduced  from  xxix. 
10.  Very  remarkable,  however,  is  it  that  the  name  '  Yahweh  is 
our  righteousness,' which  Jeremiah  assigned  to  the  Messiah,  is  here 
transferred  to  the  city. 

17,  The  prediction  of  the  permanence  of  the  Davidic  dynasty 
has  reference  to  the  future  ;  at  the  time  when  the  passage  was 
written  the  monarchy  had  fallen. 

18.  the  priests  the  Levites:  i.  e.  the  Levitical  priests.  This 
is  the  phrase  used  by  Deuteronomy  and  in  other  literature  earlier 
than  the  Reformation  under  Nehemiah.  It  is  probable  that  this 
passage  was  written  after  the  distinction  between  priebts  and 
Levites  had  been  established  by  the  acceptance  of  tlic  Priestly 
Legislation.  If  so,  the  writer  avails  himself  of  the  archaic  mode 
of  expression,  which  indicated  that  all  the  members  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi  were  entitled  to  act  as  priests.  This  verse  is  written  from 
a  standpoint  very  different  from  Jeremiah's. 

to  offer  .  .   .  continiially.     The  burnt-offering  was  wholly 


134  JEREMIAH  33.  19-24.     S 

19  burn  i^  oblations,  and  to  do  sacrifice  continually.     And 

20  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  Jeremiah,  saying,  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  :  If  ye  can  break  my  covenant  of  the  day, 
and  my  covenant  of  the  night,  so  that  there  should  not  be 

21  day  and  night  in  their  season ;  then  may  also  my  covenant 
be  broken  with  David  my  servant,  that  he  should  not  have 
a  son  to  reign  upon  his  throne ;  and  with  the  Levites  the 

22  priests,  my  ministers.  As  the  host  of  heaven  cannot  be 
numbered,  neither  the  sand  of  the  sea  measured  ;  so  will 
I  multiply  the  seed  of  David  my  servant,  and  the  Levites 

23  that  minister  unto  me.     And  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 

24  to  Jeremiah,  saying,  Considerest  thou  not  what  this  people 

^  f  Or,  meal  offerings 

made  over  to  God  ;  the  oblation  was  the  vegetable  offering ;  the 
sacrifice  was  used  for  a  feast,  of  which  the  offerer  and  his  friends 
partook,  though  a  portion  of  course  was  given  to  God  :  see  note 
on  vii.  21  (vol.  i,  p.  151). 

20-26.  The  passage  is  closel3'  parallel  to  xxxi.  35,  36,  and 
probably  an  imitation  of  it.  The  Hebrew  for  '  my  covenant  of  the 
day,  and  my  covenant  of  the  night '  is  suspicious  ;  if  it  is  correct, 
as  in  view  of  the  late  origin  of  the  passage  it  may  be,  the  mean- 
ing is  apparently  the  covenant  which  Yahweh  has  made  with  day 
and  night.  Possibly  we  should  read  'the  covenant'  for  'my 
covenant,'  which  would  restore  a  regular  construction  ;  Duhm 
thinks  the  point  is  that  day  and  night  make  a  covenant  with  each 
other,  to  observe  their  own  season,  but  this  is  questionable. 

21.  For  this  covenant  with  David  see  2  Sam.  vii.  16,  i  Kings 
ii.  4. 

22.  Cf.  Gen.  xv.  5,  and  for  a  closer  parallel  xxii,  17.  The  com- 
parison is  expressed  in  loose  terms,  but  the  meaning  is  clear.  It 
is  remarkable  that  a  prophecy  originally  spoken  of  the  whole 
people  should  here  be  applied  to  the  roj^al  and  priestly  families. 

24.  This  verse  is  difficult.  The  '  two  families '  are  probably 
not  the  house  of  David  and  the  house  of  Levi,  though  the  preced- 
ing verses  have  spoken  of  these,  but  in  accordance  with  26  (as  in 
Ezek.  xxxv.  10),  Israel  and  Judah.  'This  people'  according  to 
usage  should  refer  to  Israel  (i.e.  the  whole  people  including  both 
'  families '),  but  if  we  read  *  before  them  '  at  the  end  of  the  verse, 
it  would  follow  that  a  heathen  people  is  intended.  It  is  therefore 
probable  that,  with  some  versions,  we  should  read  '  before  me.'    A 


JEREMIAH   33.  25— 34.  1.     SB  135 

have  spoken,  saying,  The  two  families  which  the  Lord 
did  choose,  he  hath  cast  them  off?  thus  do  they  despise  my 
people,  that  they  should  be  no  more  a  nation  before  them. 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  If  my  covenant  of  day  and  night  25 
stand  not,  if  I  have  not  appointed  the  ordinances  of  heaven 
and  earth ;  then  will  I  also  cast  away  the  seed  of  Jacob,  26 
and  of  David  my  servant,  so  that  I  will  not  take  of  his 
seed  to  be  rulers  over  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  :  for  I  will  ''» cause  their  captivity  to  return,  and  will 
have  mercy  on  them. 

[B]  The  word  which  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  the  S4 

*  Or,  return  to  their  captivity 

still  better  sense  is  given  by  Duhm's  emendation,  '■  he  hath  cast 
them  off,  and  despiseth  his  people,  that  it  should  be  no  more  a 
nation  before  him.' 

25.  Cf.  20.  A  verb  would  be  expected  in  the  first  clause  to 
correspond  to  'have  appointed.'  Duhm  has  made  the  very 
attractive  suggestion  that  we  should  make  a  very  slight  alteration 
in  the  word  rendered  'my covenant'  {bard'' tin  iov b^rit lit),  reading 
'  If  I  have  not  created  day  and  night.'  Cornill  and  Rothstein 
accept  it.  If  it  is  original  it  was  naturally  assimilated  to  20  by 
some  scribe. 

26.  Duhm  and  Cornill  strike  out  '  of  Jacob,  and  ; '  the  omission 
is  favoured  by  the  sequel  which  speaks  of  '  his  seed  ; '  but  is  not 
necessary. 

xxxiv.  1-7.   Jeremiah  Warns  Zedekiah  of  the  Disaster 
WHICH  awaits  Continued  Resistance  to  Babylon.  ^ 

We  now  resume  the  biographical  portion  of  the  work,  which 
was  of  course  partially  resumed  in  xxxii.  The  incident  recorded 
in  this  section  took  place  probably  before  the  interruption  of  the 
siege  by  the  relief  army  from  Egypt,  in  which  the  second  incident 
recorded  in  this  chapter  falls  (21,  22).  We  may  infer  from  2  that 
Jeremiah  had  not  yet  lost  his  liberty.  The  narrative  is  quite  trust- 
worthy, though  possibly  mutilated  to  some  extent  (see  note  on  4). 

xxxiv.  1-3.  When  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his  hosts  were  fighting 
against  Jerusalem  and  its  cities,  Jeremiah  was  sent  to  warn  Zede- 
kiah that  Jerusalem  would  be  taken  and  burnt  by  the  king  of 
Babylon,  and  he  himself  would  be  confronted  with  the  victor  and 
taken  to  Babylon. 


136  JEREMIAH  34.  2,  3.     B 

Lord,  when  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  and  all 
his  army,  and  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  that  were 
under  his  dominion,  and  all  the  peoples,  fought  against 
Jerusalem,  and  against   all   the  cities   thereof,   saying : 

2  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  Go,  and  speak 
to  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah,  and  tell  him,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  Behold,  I  wuU  give  this  city  into  the  hand  of  the 

3  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall  burn  it  with  fire  :  and  thou 

4-7.  Yet  he  should  not  die  by  the  sword  but  in  peace,  with  the 
customary  ro3'al  burnings  and  lamentations.  So  Jeremiah  declared 
this  message  to  Zedekiah,  when  Babylon  was  warring  against 
Jerusalem,  Lachish,  and  Azekah,  the  only  cities  that  remained  un- 
captured. 

zxxiv.  1.  Since  in  7  we  have  a  fairly  precise  indication  of  the 
time,  it  is  likely  that  this  verse  is  largely  editorial ;  had  Baruch 
written  it  he  would  have  inserted  here  the  information  he  gives  in 
7.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  somewhat  bombastic  style, 
though  the  LXX  gives  us  an  abbreviated  form. 

2.  Duhm  thinks  the  first  part  of  the  verse  is  editorial,  and  that 
Baruch  would  simply  have  said  '  Then  Jeremiah  said  to  Zedekiah, 
Thus  saith,'  &c.  His  reason  is  that  Jeremiah  would  not  be  one  of 
those  who  had  access  to  the  royal  presence  at  any  time.  It  is 
hardly  likely,  however,  that  a  prophet  of  Jeremiah's  standing 
would  have  found  any  difficulty  in  approaching  the  king,  if  he  went 
to  deliver  the  word  of  Yahweh  to  him.  For  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse  cf.  xxi.  10,  xxxvii.  8-10,  xxxviii.  23. 

3.  Cf.  xxxii.  4,  5,  Duhm  infers  from  Baruch's  silence  as  to  the 
blinding  of  Zedekiah  and  the  execution  of  his  sons  that  they  are 
unhistorical.  He  thinks  that  the  king  succeeded  in  establishing 
his  personal  innocence  at  his  interview  with  Nebuchadnezzar,  and 
since  Jehoiachin  was  not  used  very  badly,  Zedekiah  may  have 
escaped  anything  worse  than  imprisonment  for  life.  But  we  should 
rather  argue,  If  Jehoiachin,  who  was  personally  innocent  of  his 
father's  rebellion,  was  taken  into  captivity'  and  languished  in  prison 
through  the  whole  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  long  reign,  how  should  we 
expect  Zedekiah  to  be  treated  by  a  suzerain  to  whom  he  owed  his 
throne,  when  he  violated  his  solemn  oath  of  allegiance,  the  breach 
of  which  he  had  previously  meditated  ?  We  may  make  allow- 
ances for  the  king's  difficult  position,  but  we  cannot  acquit  him  of 
serious  blame.  Ezekiel  condemned  his  action  in  the  strongest 
terms  i  Ezek.  xvii.  1-21).  And  his  testimony  to  the  blinding  of 
Zedekiah  should  settle  the  question  :      '  and  I  will  bring  him  to 


JEREMIAH  31.  4-6.     B  137 

shall  not  escape  out   of  his   hand,   but  shalt  surely  be 
taken,  and  delivered  into  his  hand  ;  and  thine  eyes  shall 
behold   the  eyes  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall 
speak  with  thee  mouth  to  mouth,  and  thou  shalt  go  to 
Babylon.     Yet  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  O  Zedekiah  4 
king  of  Judah  :  thus  saith  the  Lord  concerning  thee, 
Thou  shalt  not  die  by  the  sword  ;    thou  shalt  die  in  5 
peace ;  and  with  the  burnings  of  thy  fathers,  the  former 
kings  which  were  before  thee,  so  shall  they  "■  make  a  burn- 
ing for  thee ;   and  they  shall  lament  thee,  saying,  Ah 
lord !  for  I  have  spoken  the  word,  saith  the  Lord.  Then  6 
*  See  2  Chron.  xvi.  14,  xxi.  19. 

Babylon  to  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans  ;   yet  shall  he   not  see  it, 
though  he  shall  die  there '  (xii.  13). 

4,  5.  These  verses  raise  a  serious  problem.  The  most  obvious 
interpretation  is  that  although  Zedekiah  will  have  to  go  to  Babylon, 
he  will  not  be  executed  but  die  in  peace,  and  all  the  wonted  honours 
paid  to  Jewish  kings  at  their  death  will  be  paid  to  him.  But  as 
Hitzig,  with  the  full  approval  of  Graf  and  some  of  the  best  among 
recent  expositors,  forcibly  argued,  such  a  mitigation  by  Jeremiah 
of  the  consequences  of  rebellion  would  be  in  direct  opposition 
to  his  invariable  attitude  and  the  impression  he  desired  to  make. 
It  was  also  hardly  in  harmony  with  the  event,  for  the  almost 
idyllic  description  of  peaceful  death  and  honourable  burial  would 
not  have  prepared  the  king  for  the  bereavement  he  suffered  and 
the  blinding  he  had  personally  to  endure.  But  since  Jeremiah' 
could  not  have  said  to  the  king,  '  You  will  have  to  go  into  captiv- 
ity, but  matters  will  not  be  so  bad  after  all,'  we  must  regard  this 
as  a  conditional  promise.  If  the  king  surrenders  unconditionally 
he  shall  retain  his  throne  till  his  death,  and  then  be  honoured  as 
his  predecessors  had  been.  Of  course  the  text  in  its  present  form 
docs  not  say  this,  but  we  should  rather  attribute  this  to  the  loss  of 
a  few  words,  than  to  the  unskilful  style  of  the  narrator.  The 
beginning  of  4  suggests  in  fact  that  a  contrast  to  the  course  the 
king  was  pursuing  should  follow. 

with  the  burning's  .  .  .  for  thee.  The  reference  is  to  the  burn- 
ing of  sweet  spices  at  the  funeral  of  a  king,  not  to  the  cremation  of 
the  corpse,  for  this  was  buried,  not  burned  (see  2  Chron.  xvi.  14, 
xxi.  19  .  It  would  be  better  to  read,  with  LXX,  Syr.,  Vulg.,  '  as  at 
the  burnings.' 

Ah  lord  I     Sec  note  on  xxii.  18. 


138  JEREMIAH  34.  7,  8.     B 

Jeremiah  the  prophet  spake  all  these  words  unto  Zedekiah 

7  king  of  Judah  in  Jerusalem,  when  the  king  of  Babylon's 
army  fought  against  Jerusalem,  and  against  all  the  cities 
of  Judah  that  were  left,  against  Lachish  and  against 
Azekah  ;  for  these  alone  remained  of  the  cities  of  Judah 
as  fenced  cities. 

8  The  word  that  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord, 

7.  The  LXX  omits  '  all '  and  '  that  were  left ; '  it  would  give 
a  better  sentence  if  we  omitted  the  whole  clause,  reading  simply 
'against  Jerusalem,  against  Lachish,'  &c.  Presumably  a  scribe 
added  after  *  Jerusalem '  the  familiar  '  all  the  cities  of  Judah  ; '  then 
a  later  scribe,  observing  how  incongruous  this  was,  since  only  two 
were  involved,  corrected  the  text  into  its  present  form.  Lachish  is 
to  be  identified  with  Tell  el-Hesy,  which  is  about  thirty-five  miles 
south-west  of  Jerusalem.  It  was  a  strongly  fortified  place,  which 
was  occupied  by  Sennacherib  as  his  base  during  his  campaign  in 
701  B.  c.  Azekah  has  not  yet  been  identified  ;  according  to  Joshua 
^v-  35)  I  Sam.  xvii.  i,  it  was  in  the  Shephelah,  not  far  from  Socoh  : 
it  seems  to  have  been  a  fortress  in  the  south-west  of  Judah,  about 
fifteen  miles  from  Jerusalem. 

xxxiv.  8-22.  Condemnation  of  the  Re-enslavement  of 
Hebrew  Slaves  in  Violation  of  Oath. 
The  general  situation  is  fairly  clear,  but  the  passage  presents 
some  difficulties.  During  the  earlier  part  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
siege  of  Jerusalem,  Zedekiah  induced  his  people  to  liberate  their 
Hebrew  slaves.  When,  however,  the  siege  was  raised  on  account 
of  the  relief  expedition  from  Egypt,  they  forced  back  into  bondage 
the  slaves  whom  they  set  free.  Their  cynical  perfidy  was  aggra- 
vated by  a  blasphemous  perjury.  For  the  edict  of  emancipation 
was  not  merely  a  civil  proclamation,  it  was  an  oath  sworn  with  all 
the  solemnities  of  religion,  and  thus  placed  under  the  protection 
of  Yahweh.  The  human  wrong  would  in  any  case  have  excited 
the  prophet's  burning  indignation  ;  but  their  shameless  violation  of 
the  sanctities  of  religion,  this  flouting  of  their  God  to  His  face, 
involved  them  in  a  still  deeper  condemnation.  The  narrative, 
however,  as  it  stands  is  very  incomplete.  No  indication  is  given 
as  to  the  motive  of  their  conduct.  Duhm  supposes  that  the  eman- 
cipation rested  simply  on  political  grounds,  and  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Law  or  religion.  During  the  siege  the  slaves  were  of  no 
use  to  the  inhabitants,  since  they  would  normally  be  engaged  in 
the  fields  outside  the  walls,  and  now  that  the  city  was  invested 
they  were  a  burden  on  the  food-supply.  By  their  action  they  had 
fewer  useless  mouths  to  feed,  and  perhaps  enlisted  some  more  free 


JEREMIAH  34.  8.     B  139 

after  that  the  king  Zedekiah  had  made  a  covenant  with 

men  for  the  defence  of  the  cit}'.  When  the  siege  was  raised  the 
work  in  the  fields  could  be  resumed,  so  that  the  slaves  again 
became  of  service.  The  impression  made  by  the  narrative,  how- 
ever, is  not  that  emancipation  was  purely  prudential  and  selfish, 
but  that  in  itself  it  was  a  boon  to  the  slaves,  which  on  Duhm's 
interpretation  it  could  hardly  have  been.  It  is  much  more  probable 
that  it  was  intended  as  such,  not  of  course  out  of  disinterested 
motives,  but  because  by  such  a  costly  surrender  the  masters  hoped 
to  win  the  help  of  Yahweh  against  Babylon.  When  the  siege  was 
raised,  they  thought,  with  characteristic  optimism,  that  the  danger 
was  over,  and  there  was  no  need  to  leave  their  former  slaves  in 
enjoyment  of  their  liberty  now  that  the  granting  of  it  had  secured 
what  they  wanted. 

The  denunciation  of  their  conduct  in  13  ff.  creates  a  difficulty,  in 
that  it  connects  the  release  of  the  slaves  with  the  law  that  Hebrew 
slaves  were  to  be  released  in  the  seventh  year  (Exod.  xxi.  2,  Deut. 
XV.  12\  But  this  law  seems  to  be  irrelevant  to  the  action  here 
recorded.  For  the  law  provided  for  release  at  the  end  of  six 
years  dating  from  the  beginning  of  the  individual's  servitude,  so  that 
there  was  no  fixed  point  of  time  when  all  the  slaves  would  be 
released,  but  the  occasion  for  release  might  fall  at  any  time.  But 
the  act  of  which  we  read  in  this  chapter  was  a  simultaneous 
emancipation  of  all  the  Hebrew  slaves,  quite  irrespective  of  the 
term  of  service.  Now  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  law  had  for 
a  considerable  time  been  disregarded,  and  that  many  had  been  in 
servitude  for  longer  than  six  years.  But  it  is  also  probable  that 
the  term  fixed  by  the  law  had  in  many  cases  not  expired.  It  is 
therefore  a  plausible  inference  that  the  reference  to  the  law  is 
due  to  an  editor.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  emancipation 
was  undertaken  in  obedience  to  the  neglected  law  ;  and  that  to 
make  their  action  even  more  effective,  and  perhaps  atone  for  their 
earlier  disregard,  they  decided  to  emancipate  all  their  slaves  with- 
out waiting  till  the  legal  term  had  expired.  A  death-bed  repentance, 
with  the  usual  sequel  on  recovery  ! 

xxxiv.  8-1 1.  Zedekiah  made  a  covenant  with  the  people  of  Jeru- 
salem to  release  their  Hebrew  slaves.  The  princes  and  people 
agreed  and  released  them,  but  afterwards  re-enslaved  them. 

12-16.  Jeremiah  reminds  them  that  their  fathers  had  disobeyed 
the  law  bidding  them  release  their  Hebrew  slaves  in  the  seventh 
year ;  they  had  themselves,  however,  made  a  covenant  in  the 
Temple  before  Yahweh  to  let  the  slaves  go  free,  and  then  brought 
them  back  into  bondage. 

17-22.  Since  then  they  have  disobeyed  His  command  to  set 
their  brethren  free,  Yahweh  will  set  them  free  to  fall  a  prey  to 
sword,  plague,  and  famine,  and  make  them  a  consternation  to  all 


I40  JEREMIAH  34.  9,  10.     B 

all   the  people   which   were   at  Jerusalem,  to    proclaim 
9  liberty  unto  them ;  that  every  man  should  let  his  man- 
servant, and  every  man  his  maidservant,  being  an  Hebrew 
or  an  Hebrewess,  go  free ;  that  none  should  serve  him- 
10  self  of  them,  to  wit,  of  a  Jew  his  brother:  and  all  the 

nations.  And  those  who  made  the  covenant,  by  cutting  the  calf 
in  twain  and  passing  between  the  pieces,  shall  be  given  up  to  their 
enemies  ;  and  their  carcasses  shall  be  food  for  bird  and  beast.  And 
Zedekiah  and  his  princes  will  be  given  to  the  Babylonian  army. 
For  though  it  has  left  Jerusalem  Yahweh  will  bring  it  back,  and  it 
will  capture  and  burn  the  city. 

xxxiv.  8.  The  verse  gives  the  date  of  the  oracle  inexactly,  for 
it  was  after  the  breach  of  faith  had  been  committed  that  Jeremiah's 
denunciation  was  uttered. 

to  proclaim  liberty  unto  them.  '  Unto  them '  should  prob- 
ably be  omitted,  as  by  LXX.  The  reference  should  be  to  the 
people,  but  apparently  the  sense  is  not  that  the  proclamation  of 
release  should  be  communicated  to  the  people,  but  that  freedom 
should  be  announced  to  the  slaves.  The  word  rendered  '  liberty ' 
is  unusual,  and  is  not  found  in  the  earliest  legislation  or  in  Deuter- 
onomy, though  in  Lev.  xxv.  10  it  is  employed  with  reference  to 
the  year  of  Jubilee:  see  also  Ezek.  xlvi.  17,  Isa.  Ixi.  i. 

9.  The  number  of  Hebrew  slaves  is  explained  by  the  conditions 
of  the  time.  The  old  peasant  proprietors  had  been  largely  exter- 
minated in  the  wars ;  the  heavy  tribute  and  taxation  had  ruined 
the  poorer  people ;  wealth  had  accumulated  in  comparatively  few 
hands,  and  had  been  employed  in  luxury  and  other  barren  ex- 
penditure ;  so  that  the  poor,  seeing  no  alternative  but  starvation, 
had  been  forced  to  sell  their  children  and  then  themselves  into 
slavery.  In  the  earher  period  the  relation  between  masters  and 
slaves  seems  to  have  been  friendly  and  humane ;  but  in  the  capi- 
talist era  which  had  supervened,  class  distinctions  would  be 
aggravated  and  the  old  personal  ties  would  to  a  large  extent  have 
given  place  to  the  point  of  view  we  associate  with  slavery. 

that  none  .  .  .  his  brother.  The  clause  is  very  clumsy  in  the 
Hebrew.  The  LXX  gives  '  so  that  no  one  of  Judah  should  any 
more  be  a  slave.' 

10,  11.  Here  also  the  LXX  has  a  briefer  text:  <And  all  the 
princes  and  all  the  people,  which  had  entered  into  the  covenant 
that  every  one  should  let  his  manservant  and  every  one  his 
maidservant  go  free,  turned  and  brought  them  into  subjection  for 
manservants  and  maidservants.'  It  is  a  moot  question  whether 
this  represents  a  more  original  text  than  the  Hebrew,  since  it  is 


JEREMIAH  34.  ir-14.     B  141 

princes  and  all  the  people  obeyed,  which  had  entered 
into  the  covenant,  that  every  one  should  let  his  man- 
servant, and  every  one  his  maidservant,  go  free,   that 
none  should  serve  themselves  of  them  any  more  ;  they 
obeyed,  and  let  them  go:  but  afterwards  they  turned,  tt 
and  caused  the  servants  and  the  handmaids,  whom  they 
had  let  go  free,  to  return,  and  brought  them  into  sub- 
jection  for  servants  and  for  handmaids:   therefore  the  12 
word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord, 
saying.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel :  I  made  13 
a  covenant  with  ycur  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  brought 
them  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of 
n  bondage,  saying,  At  the  end  of  seven  years  ye  shall  let  14 
go  every  man  his  brother  that   is    an   Hebrew,   which 
^^  hath  been   sold  unto  thee,  and   hath  served  thee  six 
years,  thou  shalt  let  him  go  free  from  thee  :  but  your 
fathers  hearkened  not  unto  me,   neither  inclined  their 

"■  Heb.  boiidiuen.  ^  Or,  /lat/i  sold  himself 

possible  to  explain  the  omission  in  the  LXX  by  the  passing  of  the 
scribe's  eye  from  'free'  in  10  to  'free'  in  11  (so  Giesebrecht}  ; 
or,  assuming  that  the  Greek  text  is  the  original,  the  change  of 
'  turned'  at  the  beginning  of  10  into  'obeyed'  may  have  occa- 
sioned the  expansion  into  the  present  Hebrew  text  (so  Duhm, 
Cornill\     The  latter  is  perhaps  the  more  probable. 

13,  14.  The  law  is  quoted,  though  freely,  according  to  the  form 
in  Deuteronomy  (xv.  12)  rather  than  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(Exod.  xxi.  2),  and  the  time  designation  '  at  the  end  of  seven 
years'  seems  to  come  from  Deut.  xv.  i  which  introduces  a  law  on 
a  different  subject, '  the  3'ear  of  release.'  It  is  interesting  that 
the  Deuteronomic  Law  can  be  referred  to  as  given  on  the  day  that 
Israel  left  Egypt    see  note  on  vii.  22). 

13.  I  made;  The  pronoun  is  emphatic.  There  is  a  contrast 
with  the  emphatic  pronoun  '  ye  '  at  the  beginning  of  15. 

14.  At  the  end  of  seven  years  :  cf.  Deut.  xv.  i  (see  above). 
We  should  say  at  the  end  of  six  3'ears,  since  this  is  clearly  indi- 
cated in  the  course  of  the  verse.  The  I. XX  reads  'six,'  and  ma}', 
of  course,  be  right  in  doing  so  ;  but  other  examples  may  be  quoted 
from  the  Old  Testament  of  a  similar  usage  to  what  we  find  here ; 
just  as  the  French  say  '  quinze  jours '  for  our  '  fourteen  days.' 


142  JEREMIAH  34.  15-18.     B 

15  ear.  And  ye  were  now  turned,  and  had  done  that  which 
is  right  in  mine  eyes,  in  proclaiming  liberty  every  man 
to  his  neighbour;  and  ye  had  made  a  covenant  before 

16  me  in  the  house  which  is  called  by  my  name  :  but  ye 
turned  and  profaned  my  name,  and  caused  every  man 
his  servant,  and  every  man  his  handmaid,  whom  ye  had 
let  go  free  at  their  pleasure,  to  return  ;  and  ye  brought 
them  into  subjection,  to  be  unto  you  for  servants  and 

r  7  for  handmaids.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Ye  have 
not  hearkened  unto  me,  to  proclaim  liberty,  every  man 
to  his  brother,  and  every  man  to  his  neighbour :  behold, 
I  proclaim  unto  you  a  liberty,  saith  the  Lord,  to  the 
sword,  to  the  pestilence,  and  to  the  famine ;  and  I  will 
make  you  to  be  ^tossed  to  and  fro  among  all  the  kingdoms 

18  of  the  earth.     And  I  will  give  the  men  that  have  trans- 

*  i'Or,  a  terror  unto 

1*7.  Now  follows  the  sentence.  They  have  been  disobedient  to 
Yahweh  in  not  emancipating  their  slaves  at  His  bidding  ;  therefore 
He  emancipates  them,  dismisses  them  from  His  service.  But  they 
will  not  be  masterless;  sword,  pestilence,  and  famine  will  be  their 
new  masters.  For  the  closing  words  of  the  verse  see  note  on 
XV.   4. 

18-20.  The  text  is  inexact  and  redundant ;  it  is  probably  to 
some  extent  in  disorder  and  disturbed  by  glosses.  The  LXX  has 
a  briefer  text.  Duhm  strikes  out  a  good  deal,  including  all  refer- 
ence to  the  calf.  If,  however,  there  is  anything  in  the  passage 
which  is  authentic,  it  is  the  reference  to  the  ceremony  of  passing 
between  the  pieces  of  the  calf.  Duhm  quite  unwarrantably  rejects 
the  representation  that  the  agreement  to  emancipate  the  slaves 
was  placed  under  the  sanction  of  religion.  Certainly  the  disavowal 
of  the  proclamation  would  have  been  very  reprehensible  had  it 
been  merely  a  civil  act ;  but  it  gave  a  still  darker  colour  to  it  that 
they  had  placed  their  oath  under  the  protection  of  their  God  (15) 
and  ratified  it  by  an  ancient  religious  rite.  It  is  very  difficult  to 
believe  that  any  editor  is  responsible  for  this  valuable  piece  of 
information.  The  precise  restoration  of  the  passage  is  a  matter 
of  much  less  moment  ;  Giesebrecht  reconstructs  18,  19  as  follows  : 
*  And  I  will  give  up  the  men  that  passed  between  the  parts  of  the 
calf,   the    princes   of  Judah   and   the    princes   of  Jerusalem,  the 


JEREMIAH  34.  19-21.     B  143 

gressed  my  covenant,  which  have  not  performed  the  words 
of  the  covenant  which  they  made  before  me,  ^  when  they 
cut  the  calf  in  twain  and  passed  between  the  parts  thereof; 
the  princes  of  Judah,  and  the  princes  of  Jerusalem,  the  19 
eunuchs,  and  the  priests,  and  all  the  people  of  the  land, 
which  passed  between  the  parts  of  the  calf ;  I  will  even  20 
give  them  into  the  hand  of  their  enemies,  and  into  the 
hand  of  them  that  seek  their  life :  and  their  dead  bodies 
shall  be  for  meat  unto  the  fowls  of  the  heaven,  and  to 
the  beasts  of  the  earth.     And  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah  21 
and  his  princes  will  I  give  into  the  hand  of  their  enemies, 
and  into  the  hand  of  them  that  seek  their  life,  and  into 
°-  Heb.  tlie  calf  ivhich  they  cut  iS-r. 

eunuchs,  and  the  priests,  and  all  the  people.'  The  ceremony  is 
familiar  to  us  from  Gen.  xv.  10,  where  we  read  that  Abraham 
divided  the  heifer,  the  she-goat,  and  the  ram  in  two,  and  laid  each 
half  opposite  each  other,  and  when  the  sun  went  down  *  a  smok- 
ing furnace  and  a  flaming  torch'  passed  between  the  pieces  (17), 
Yahweh  thus  making  a  covenant  with  the  patriarch.  The  signi- 
ficance of  the  ceremony  is  often  supposed  to  be  that  the  contracting 
parties  invoked  on  themselves  the  fate  which  had  befallen  the 
victims  if  they  broke  the  covenant  (cf.  i  Sam.  xi.  7).  But  the 
essence  of  the  rite  is  the  cutting  of  the  victim  in  two  pieces  and 
passing  between  them,  and  this  is  not  very  relevant  to  such  an 
imprecation.  It  is  more  probably  a  mystical  rite  :  the  parties  to  the 
covenant  are  united  by  being  taken  within  the  life  of  the  same 
sacred  victim.  It  is  thus  allied  to  a  covenant  sacrifice  in  which  the 
parties  eat  of  the  same  victim,  or  to  the  less  attenuated  rite  of 
blood-licking,  in  which  the  union  is  directly  reciprocal  and  not 
mediated  through  a  third  party. 

18.  my  covenant:  i.e.  the  Deuteronomic  Law  previously  men- 
tioned; 'the  covenant,'  i.e.  the  agreement  to  emancipate  the 
Hebrew  slaves. 

when  they  cut  the  calf.  The  margin  gives  the  literal  trans- 
lation of  the  Hebrew  text,  which  can  hardly  be  right.  The  R.V. 
text  implies  a  slight  transposition. 

20.  and  into  the  hand  of  them  that  seek  their  life.  Probably 
to  be  omitted,  with  the  LXX,  both  here  and  in  the  following  verse. 

21.  The  incidental  reference  to  the  raising  of  the  siege  is 
obviously  authentic  ;  it  supplies  the  explanation  of  the  breach  of 
faith,  which  is  strangely  omitted  in  the  narrative  itself. 


144  JEREMIAH  34.  22—35.  i.     B 

the  hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon's  army,  which  are  gone 
2  2  up  from  you.  Behold,  I  will  command,  saith  the  Lord, 
and  cause  them  to  return  to  this  city  ;  and  they  shall 
fight  against  it,  and  take  it,  and  burn  it  with  fire  :  and 
I  will  make  the  cities  of  Judah  a  desolation,  without 
inhabitant. 

J5       The  word  which  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord 

22.  As  they  have  caused  their  slaves  to  return  (ii),  so  Yahweh 
will  cause  their  besiegers  to  return  and  consummate  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  citj'. 

XXXV.  The  Fidelity  of  the  Rechabites  and  the  Disobedience 
OF  the  Jews. 

In  this  chapter  we  are  suddenly  transported  to  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim,  if  we  can  trust  the  evidence  of  the  title.  Erbt  rejects 
it,  and  dates  the  incident  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  It  is  in  favour 
of  this  view  that  the  historical  situation  requires  a  date  after 
Jehoiakim's  rebellion  against  Babylon,  since  it  was  the  Babylonian 
and  Syrian  armies  which  had  compelled  the  Rechabites  to  come 
into  Jerusalem  (ii  :  cf.  sKingsxxiv.  2^.  The  incident  accordingly 
falls  some  years  after  the  burning  of  the  roll  and  Jehoiakim's 
attempt  to  have  the  prophet  arrested.  It  is  argued  that  so  long  as 
Jehoiakim  was  on  the  throne  if  would  have  been  unsafe  for  Jere- 
miah to  come  out  of  hiding  (xxxvi.  19,  26}.  But  probabl}'  the  king, 
after  an  interval,  had  decided  to  carry  the  matter  no  further  (see 
vol.  i,  p.  20).  The  reference  to  the  Syrian  army  suits  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim  (2  Kings  xxiv.  2),  and  we  should  probably  accept 
this  as  the  true  date  and  assign  it  to  598  B.  c.  or  thereabouts. 

This  narrative  gives  us  our  fullest  information  about  the  Recha- 
bites. They  were  a  branch  of  the  Kenites  (i  Chron.  ii.  55'  ;  and 
from  the  account  given  of  Jonadab  their  ancestor,  we  can  see  that 
he  was  a  zealous  sympathizer  with  Jehu,  who  destroyed  the  house 
of  Ahab  with  atrocious  bloodshed.  His  sympathy'  was  enlisted, 
since  he  was  a  fanatic  for  what  he  took  to  be  the  pure  worship  of 
Yahweh.  Some  scholars  consider  that  the  worship  of  Yahweh 
was  originall}'  derived  from  the  Kenites,  among  Vv'hom  Moses 
dwelt  after  his  flight  from  Egypt.  The  religion  of  Israel,  which 
was  at  first  a  wilderness  religion,  was  profoundly  transformed  by 
the  settlement  in  Canaan.  The  nomad  became  a  tiller  of  the  soil. 
He  learnt  the  art  of  agriculture  from  the  Canaanites.  This  included 
not  merely  the  right  mode  of  cultivating  the  land,  but  also  the 
-right  mode  of  winning  the  favour  of  the  supernatural  powers  who 


JEREMIAH   35.  i.     B  145 

in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah, 

could  grant  or  withhold  their  blessing  on  his  toil.  Each  district 
had  its  Baal,  and  success  in  agriculture  was  dependent  on  the 
favour  of  these  local  Baalim.  The  Hebrews  combined  the  worship 
of  the  Baalim  with  that  of  Yah  weh,  without  feeling  that  they  were 
thereby  compromising  their  duty  of  sole  allegiance  to  their 
national  God.  Yahweh  and  the  Baalim  did  not  stand  for  them  on 
the  same  plane,  any  more  than  many  monotheists  would  feel 
that  God  and  the  saints  were  on  the  same  plane,  though  both 
might  be  objects  of  worship.  There  was,  however,  a  radical  dis- 
tinction between  Yahweh  and  the  Baalim,  in  that  the  cult  of  the 
latter  was  associated  with  revolting  licentiousness.  Moreover, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  the  term  'baal'  meant  'lord'  or  'owner,' 
it  could  be,  and  was,  used  quite  innocently  of  Yahweh  Himself. 
And,  as  time  went  on,  the  Hebrews  began  to  think  of  Yahweh  as 
the  lord  of  the  land  and  the  giver  of  fertility.  These  two  factors 
combined  to  contaminate  with  the  foul .  rites  of  Baalism  the 
worship  of  Yahweh  Himself.  At  last  a  definite  protest  was  made 
by  Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab.  He  strictly  forbade  his  descen- 
dants to  abandon  the  nomad  life.  They  were  not  to  build  houses 
but  to  dwell  in  tents,  they  were  to  sow  no  seed  and  to  plant  no 
vineyard,  and  they  were  not  even  to  drink  wine.  It  is  quite  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  the  main  stress  was  laid  on  total  abstinence 
from  intoxicating  drinks,  or  that  their  movement  was  a  protest 
against  luxury.  It  was  a  protest  against  adopting  the  agricultural 
life,  since  this  was  in  their  judgement  incompatible  with  perfect 
loyalty  to  their  wilderness  God,  Yahweh.  They  could  have  been 
total  abstainers  and  yet  lived  in  houses  and  planted  fields ;  nor, 
had  they  manufactured  mead  and  drunk  it,  would  they  have  been 
dislo3'al  to  the  Rechabite  ideal.  More  than  two  centuries  had 
passed  since  Jonadab  had  laid  his  commands  on  his  family,  and 
during  this  period  they  had  been  faithfully  observed.  Only  inva- 
sion had  driven  them  to  leave  the  open  country  for  the  security  of 
the  city.  (See  further  on  the  subject  of  this  paragraph  the 
editor's  T/ie  Religion  0/ Israel,  chap,  ii,  '  The  Settlement  in  Canaan 
and  Transformation  of  the  Religion,') 

The  historical  character  of  the  incident  itself  is  generally 
admitted.  Schmidt  constitutes  an  exception  among  recent  writers. 
*  That  Jeremiah  should  have  praised  for  their  loyalty  the  Rcchabites 
whose  very  presence  in  Jerusalem  constituted  the  severest  infringe- 
ment of  the  commandment  enjoined  upon  them  by  their  ancestor  is 
quite  incredible,  apart  from  the  questionable  method  used  to  test 
their  fidelity  to  one  of  the  ancestral  injunctions,  and  the  scene  of 
this  trial '  (Ekc.  Bib.  2387  .  But  it  is  a  pure  assumption  that  their 
presence  in  Jerusalem  infringed  the  command  of  Jonadab,  since 
they  might  still  have  pitched  their  tents  within  the  walls.     And 

II  L 


146  JEREMIAH  35.  2.     B 

2  saying,  Go  unto  the  house  of  the  Rechabites,  and  speak 
unto  them,  and  bring  them  into  the  house  of  the  Lord, 

even  if  it  had  been,  we  may  remember  that  the  Maccabees,  whose 
whole  movement  was  inspired  by  fidelity  to  the  Law,  were  never- 
theless forced  by  the  logic  of  bitter  experience  to  fight  on  the 
Sabbath,  though  to  maintain  its  sanctity  was  one  of  their  most 
cherished  desires  (i  Mace.  ii.  29-41).  There  was  nothing  really 
questionable,  as  Cheyne  also  urges  with  Schmidt,  about  Jeremiah's 
invitation  to  the  Rechabites,  provided  he  was  \vell  assured,  as  he 
would  be,  that  it  would  certainly  be  refused.  And  no  real 
difficulty  is  raised  as  to  the  place.  Schmidt  says  that  probably 
the  story  was  intended  to  justify  the  elevation  into  some  position 
in  the  lower  clerus  of  those  who  had  abandoned  the  nomadic  life 
they  were  solemnly  commanded  to  lead  (ibid.).  He  thinks  that 
the  chapter "  may  have  originated  in  the  Persian  period,  as 
the  reorganization  of  the  clerus  would  raise  many  questions  of 
eligibility  (loc.  cit.,  2391).  That  some  Rechabites  may  not  have 
remained  faithful  to  the  nomadic  ideal  is  suggested,  though  not 
proved,  by  Neh.  iii.  14,  where  we  are  told  that  Malchijah,  the  son 
of  Rechab,  participated  in  the  repair  of  the  gates  of  Jerusalem. 
Nor  is  the  evidence  that  the  Rechabites  were  incorporated  in  the 
lower  ranks  of  the  clergy  at  all  strong.  We  have  no  solid  reason 
for  doubting  the  historical  character  of  the  story,  but  on  the 
contrary  we  may  readily  recognize  the  presence  in  it  of  many 
features  which  cannot  have  been  invented. 

XXXV.  i-ii.  Yahweh  commanded  me  in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim 
to  take  the  Rechabites  to  a  chamber  in  the  Temple  and  give  them 
wine.  So  I  brought  them  there,  and  offered  them  wine.  But  they 
refused  it,  for  Jonadab  ben-Rechab,  their  ancestor,  had  commanded 
them  not  to  drink  wine,  build  houses,  sow  seed  or  plant  vineyards, 
or  possess  any  of  these  things,  but  to  dwell  in  tents.  They  had 
strictly  observed  his  commands,  and  had  come  to  dwell  in 
Jerusalem  only  because  of  the  armies  of  the  Chaldeans  and  the 
Syrians. 

12-19.  Yahweh  bids  the  prophet  ask  the  Jews  if  they  will 
not  receive  the  lesson.  Jonadab's  injunctions  are  obeyed,  but  the 
Jews  have  not  paid  heed  to  Yahweh  or  His  prophets.  So  all  the 
threatened  evil  will  come  on  the  Jews  for  their  disobedience,  but 
since  the  Rechabites  have  obe3'ed  the  behestsof  Jonadab,  he  shall 
not  want  a  man  to  stand  before  Yahweh  for  ever. 

XXXV.  1.  in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim.  On  the  correctness  of 
this  and  the  more  precise  date  see  the  Introduction  to  the 
chapter  (p.  144). 

2.  the  house  of  the  Rechabites:  not  the  dwelling-house  in 
which  they  were  living,  but  the  family,  as  in  3,  5,  18. 


JEREMIAH  35.  :,  4.     B  147 

into  one  of  the  chambers,  and  give  them  wme  to  drink. 
Then  I  took  Jaazaniah  the  son  of  Jeremiah,  the  son  of  3 
Habazziniah,  and  his  brethren,  and  all  his  sons,  and  the 
whole  house  of  the  Rechabites ;  and  I  brought  them  into  4 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  into  the  chamber  of  the  sons  of 
Hanan  the  son  of  Igdaliah,  the  man  of  God,  which  was 
by  the  chamber  of  the  princes,  which  was  above  the 
chamber  of  Maaseiah  the  son  of  Shallum,  the  keeper  of 


the  chambers.  Of  such  chambers  in  the  Temple  courts  there 
were  many,  used  partly  as  storerooms,  partly  as  official  residences, 
partly  for  gatherings,  especially  no  doubt  for  sacrificial  feasts. 
They  might  be  open  or  closed ;  Baruch  was  able  to  read  the  roll 
in  the  ears  of  all  the  people,  while  he  was  in  the  chamber  of 
Gemariah.  Here  also  we  may  assume  that  the  chamber  was  open, 
since  the  lesson  would  be  lost  on  the  people,  unless  they  were 
spectators  of  the  scene.  We  may  also  conclude  that  it  must  have 
been  a  spacious  room. 

3.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  names,  one  of  which  is  identical 
with  that  of  the  prophet  himself,  are  like  that  of  Jonadab,  all 
compounded  with  Yahweh.  Jaazaniah  was  presumably  the  head 
of  the  clan. 

4.  The  precision  with  which  the  situation  of  the  chamber  is 
described  vouches  for  the  historicity  of  the  narrative.  The  Temple 
itself  was  destroyed  not  so  long  after. 

the  sous  of  Kanan.  We  do  not  know  anything  of  Hanan, 
except  that  he  was  a  'man  of  God,'  and  the  sense  of  this  is  not 
certain  ;  he  was  perhaps  a  prophet.  His  *  sons '  may  have  been 
literally  such,  or  possibly  his  disciples ;  and  from  the  fact  that 
they  placed  their  room  at  Jeremiah's  disposal  we  may  gather  that 
they  were  in  sympathy  with  him. 

Igdaliah.  The  LXX  and  Syriac  read  Gedaliah,  which 
should  perhaps  be  adopted.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  this 
Gedaliah  is  not  to  be  identified  with  the  governor  who  was 
appointed  by  Nebuchadnezzar  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. 

Maaseiah:  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  father  of 
Zephaniah  the  priest  (cf.  xxi.  i,  xxix.  25,  xxxvii.  3).  He  was 
'the  keeper  of  the  door'  or  more  correctly  of  the  threshold,  to 
which  great  sanctity  was  attached  in  antiquity  (see  Trumbull's 
The  Threshold  Covenant').  From  lii.  24  (  ^  2  Kings  xxv.  18)  we 
learn  that  there  were  three  of  these  functionaries  ;  apparently 
they  ranked  after  the  second  priest. 
L  2 


148  JEREMIAH  35.  5-10.     B 

5  the  ^  door  :  and  I  set  before  the  sons  of  the  house  of  the 
Rechabites  bowls  full  of  wine,  and  cups,  and  I  said  unto 

6  them,  Drink  ye  wine.  But  they  said,  We  will  drink  no 
wine :  for  Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab  our  father  com- 
manded us,  saying,  Ye  shall  drink  no  wine,  neither  ye,  nor 

7  your  sons,  for  ever :  neither  shall  ye  build  house,  nor  sow 
seed,  nor  plant  vineyard,  nor  have  any  :  but  all  your  days 
ye  shall  dwell  in  tents ;  that  ye  may  live  many  days  in  the 

S  land  wherein  ye  sojourn.     And  we  have  obeyed  the  voice 

of  Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab  our  father  in  all  that  he 

charged  us,  to  drink  no  wine  all  our  days,  we,  our  wives, 

9  our  sons,  nor  our  daughters  ;  nor  to  build  houses  for  us  to 

dwell  in  :  neither  have  we  vineyard,  nor  field,  nor  seed  : 

10  but  we  have  dwelt  in  tents,  and  have  obeyed,  and  done 

"  Heb.  threshold. 


5.  The  bowls  were  large  vessels,  from  which  the  wine  would 
be  served  into  the  cups. 

6.  Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab.  We  meet  with  him  in  2  Kings 
X.  15,  i6,  23.  Jehu  found  in  him  a  hearty  sympathizer  in  the 
atrocities  with  which  he  extirpated  the  house  of  Ahab  and  the 
worship  of  the  Tyrian  Baal,  Melkart.  Jonadab  was  no  doubt 
inspired  simply  by  a  'zeal  for  Yahweh '  which  Jehu  indeed 
claimed,  though  in  his  case  ambition  was  only  too  evident.  It 
must,  of  course,  be  remembered  that  the  worship  of  the  Tyrian 
Baal  stood  on  quite  a  different  footing  from  the  worship  of  the 
local  Baalim,  since  it  involved  the  recognition  of  a  foreign  deity 
as  standing  on  the  same  level  as  Yahweh.  But  an  ardent  Yahweh- 
worshipper  like  Jonadab  would  naturally  be  vehemently  opposed 
to  the  cult  of  the  Baalim  and  the  worship  of  Melkart  ;  both  in- 
fringed the  monopoly  of  Yahweh.  For  the  meaning  of  the 
prohibitions  see  the  Introduction  to  this  chapter.  A  close  parallel 
is  quoted  by  Graf  and  others  from  Diodorus  Siculus  (xix.  94),  who 
says  with  reference  to  the  Nabataeans :  '  They  have  a  law, 
neither  to  sow  corn,  nor  plant  any  fruit-bearing  plant,  nor  to  use 
wine,  nor  to  build  a  dwelling-house. '  The  reason  assigned, 
however,  was  the  preservation  of  freedom  from  subjugation.  The 
penalty  for  violation  of  the  law  was  death.  Bennett  quotes  from 
Scott's  Legend  of  Montrose^  *  Son  of  the  Mist !  be  free  as  thy  fore- 
fathers. Own  no  lord — receive  no  law — take  no  hire — give  no 
stipend — build  no  hut — enclose  no  pasture — sow  no  grain.' 


JEREMIAH  35.  11-16.     B  149 

according  to  all  that  Jonadab  our  father  commanded  us. 
But  it  came  to  pass,  when  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Baby-  n 
Ion  came  up  into  the  land,  that  we  said,  Come,  and  let 
us  go  to  Jerusalem  for  fear  of  the  army  of  the  Chaldeans, 
and  for  fear  of  the  army  of  the  Syrians ;  so  we  dwell  at 
Jerusalem. 

Then  came  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  Jeremiah,  saying,  1 2 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Lsrael :  Go,  and  13 
say  to  the  men  of  Judah  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
Will  ye  not  receive  instruction  to  hearken  to  my  words  ? 
saith  the   Lord.      The  words  of  Jonadab  the  son  of  H 
Rechab,  that  he  commanded  his  sons,  not  to  drink  wine, 
are  performed,  and  unto  this  day  they  drink  none,  for  they 
obey  their  father's  commandment :   but  I  have  spoken 
unto  you,  rising  up  early  and  speaking ;  and  ye  have  not 
hearkened  unto  me.     I  have  sent  also  unto  you  all  my  15 
servants  the  prophets,  rising  up  early  and  sending  them, 
saying,  Return  ye  now  every  man  from  his  evil  way,  and 
amend  your  doings,  and  go  not  after  other  gods  to  serve 
them,  and  ye  shall  dwell  in  the  land  which  I  have  given 
to  you  and  to  your  fathers  :  but  ye  have  not  inclined  your 
ear,  nor  hearkened  unto  me.     Forasmuch  as  the  sons  of  16 


H.  Cf.  2  Kings  xxiv.  2. 

12.  The  narrative  suggests  that  the  interview  with  the 
Rechabites  ended  at  this  point,  and  that  Jeremiah  then  received  the 
Divine  message  and  was  told  to  go  and  dehver  it  to  the  people. 
But  no  special  revelation  was  needed  to  enforce  the  lesson  of  the 
scene  which  had  just  been  enacted  ;  and  its  effect  would  have  been 
largely  lost  if  there  and  then  he  had  not  driven  it  home.  The 
address  which  follows  is  largely  of  the  conventional  t3'pe.  Erbt 
probably  goes  too  far  in  leaving  :6,  19  as  its  only  authentic 
portion,  but  it  seems  to  have  suffered  considerr.blc  editorial 
expansion.  For  13  cf.  ii.  30,  vii,  28,  xvii.  23,  xxxii.  33  ;  for  14'' 
cf.  vii.  13,  xi.  7,  xxxii.  33;  for  15  cf.  vii,  3,  7,  25.  26.  xi.  8, 
xviii.  Ti,  XXV.  3-7,  xxvi.  5,  xxix.  19,  xxxiv.  14;  for  17  cf. 
xix.   15. 


I50  JEREMIAH   35.  17-19.     B 

Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab  have  performed  the  com- 
mandment of  their  father  which  he  commanded  them,  but 

17  this  people  hath  not  hearkened  unto  me;  therefore  thus 
saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  Be- 
hold, I  will  bring  upon  Judah  and  upon  all  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  all  the  evil  that  I  have  pronounced  against 
them  :  because  I  have  spoken  unto  them,  but  they  have 
not  heard;  and  I  have  called  unto  them,  but  they  have 

iS  not  answered.  And  Jeremiah  said  unto  the  house  of  the 
Rechabites,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of 
Israel :  Because  ye  have  obeyed  the  commandment  of 
Jonadab  your  father,  and  kept  all  his  precepts,  and  done 

19  according  unto  all  that  he  commanded  you ;  therefore 
thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  Jonadab 
the  son  of  Rechab  shall  not  want  a  man  to  stand  before 
me  for  ever 


18,  19.  The  LXX  diverges  a  good  deal  from  the  Hebrew: 
Duhm  and  Cornill  prefer  the  former,  but  consider  it  a  late  inser- 
tion ;  Giesebrecht  prefers  the  latter.  The  LXX  reads  *  Wherefore 
thus  saith  Yahweh,  Because  the  sons  of  Jonadab  the  son  of 
Rechab  have  obeyed  the  command  of  their  father,  and  done  as 
their  father  has  commanded,  there  shall  never  fail  a  man  to  the 
sons  of  Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab  to  stand  before  me  all  the  days 
of  the  earth.' 

19.  Jonadab  .  .  .  for  ever.  'To  stand  before  Yahweh' 
means  to  minister  to  Him.  It  is  used  with  reference  to  Jeremiah 
himself  (xv.  19  :  see  note)  ;  to  Moses  and  Samuel,  as  powerful  in 
intercession.  But  it  is  specially  used  of  priestl}'  and  Levitical 
functions.  It  would  be  too  much  to  infer  w^ith  any  confidence 
that  the  passage  is  intended  to  justify  the  incorporation  of  some 
of  the  Rechabites  into  the  ranks  of  the  inferior  clergy  (see  the 
Introduction  to  this  chapter).  It  is  true  that  we  meet  with 
a  reference  in  Hegesippus'  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  James  to 
'one  of  the  priests  of  the  sons  of  Rechab,  the  son  of  Rechabim, 
who  are  mentioned  by  Jeremiah  the  prophet'  (Hist.  EccL  ii.  23), 
but  it  is  questionable  if  much  weight  can  be  attached  to  this.  For 
identifications  with  descendants  of  the  Rechabites  by  Benjamin  of 
ludela,  Wolff,  Pierotti,  and  others,  the  Bible  Dictionaries  maybe 
consulted. 


JEREMIAH  36.  i.     B  151 

And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the  36 

xxxvi.  The  Writing,  Public  Reading,  and  Burning  of  the 
Roll. 
We  now  approach  one  of  the  most  noteworthy  chapters  of  the 
book,  since  it  gives  us  very  important  information  as  to  the 
origin  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  in  their  written  form.  We  have 
already  discussed  it  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Commentary  (vol. 
i,  pp.  57-62%  and  need  not  here  repeat  what  was  said  there.  It 
may  be  added  that  Prof.  Condamin  has  devoted  an  excellent  article 
to  this  chapter,  in  the  periodical  entitled  Etudes  (issued  by  the 
Society  of  Jesus)  for  Jan.  5,  191  r.  This  contains  an  annotated 
translation,  and  a  discussion  of  the  problems  presented  by  the 
chapter. 

xxxvi.  1-8.  In  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  Yahweh  bade 
Jeremiah  write  all  the  words  spoken  to  him  concerning  Jerusalem, 
Judah,  and  the  nations  from  the  time  of  his  call,  for  Judah  may  on 
hearing  them  amend  and  be  forgiven.  So  Barnch  wrote  them  at 
his  dictation.  And  since  the  prophet  was  prevented  from  entering 
the  Temple,  he  told  Baruch  to  read  the  roll  to  the  people  assem- 
bled in  the  Temple  for  a  fast  day,  in  the  hope  that  they  might 
entreat  Yahweh  and  amend  their  ways,  in  view  of  His  terrible 
threatening.     So  Baruch  did  as  Jeremiah  ordered  him. 

9-20,  In  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim  and  the  ninth  month  there 
was  a  fast,  and  Baruch  read  the  roll  to  the  people.  Micaiah,  having 
heard  it  read,  went  to  the  palace  and  told  all  the  princes  the 
contents  of  the  roll.  The  princes  sent  Jehudi  to  bring  Baruch  with 
the  roll.  On  his  arrival  he  read  it  at  their  request.  When  they 
had  heard  it  they  were  afraid,  and  told  him  that  they  must  report 
the  matter  to  the  king.  They  asked  him  how  he  had  written  it,  and 
he  answered  that  it  was  at  Jeremiah's  dictation.  They  warned 
him  that  he  and  Jeremiah  should  go  into  hiding.  Then  they  went 
to  the  king,  leaving  the  roll  behind  them,  and  made  their  report 
to  him. 

21  26.  The  king  sent  Jehudi  for  the  roll,  and  Jehudi  read  it  to 
him  and  the  princes  in  attendance.  Whenever  he  had  finished  read- 
ing three  or  four  columns,  the  king  cut  them  with  a  penknife  and 
burnt  them  on  a  brasier,  and  continued  doing  so  till  the  roll  was 
completely  burnt.  And  no  one  was  terror  stricken,  though  some 
vainly  entreated  the  king  not  to  burn  the  roll.  Then  he  ordered 
Baruch  and  Jeremiah  to  be  arrested,  but  Yahweh  hid  them, 

27-32.  Then  Jeremiah  was  commanded  to  take  another  roll  and 
rewrite  the  prophecies.  And  he  must  tell  Jehoiakim,  who  had 
burnt  the  roll  because  it  announced  the  destruction  of  the  land  by 
the  king  of  Pabj'lon,  that  he  should  have  none  to  sit  on  the  throne  ; 
his  dead  body  should  be  flung  forth  unburied  ;    he,  his  seed,  and 


152  JEREMIAH  36.  2.     B 

son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  that  this  word  came  unto 
Jeremiah  from  the  Lord,  saying,  Take  thee  a  roll  of 
a  book,  and  write  therein  all  the  words  that  I  have 
spoken  unto  thee  against  Israel,  and  against  Judah,  and 
against  all  the  nations,  from  the  day  I  spake  unto  thee, 

his  servants  should  be  punished  ;  they  and  all  the  people  should 
suffer  the  evil  that  had  been  threatened.  So  Baruch  wrote  on 
another  roll  the  words  of  the  roll  that  had  been  burnt,  and  added 
many  similar  words. 

sczxvi.   1.  On  the  date  see  note  on  xxv.  i. 

2.  Graf  has  argued  elaborately  that  up  to  this  time  Jeremiah 
had  committed  none  of  his  prophecies  to  writing.  Since  he  admits 
that  he  could  not  have  reproduced  his  early  prophecies  from 
memory,  he  thinks  that  it  is  only  the  substance  rather  than  the 
precise  form  which  was  reproduced,  a  task  all  the  easier  that  the 
substance  of  his  message  was  unaltered,  and  more  suited  to  the 
practical  purpose  it  was  intended  to  serve  than  if  he  had  exactly 
repeated  the  oracles  directed  to  a  different  set  of  circumstances. 
But  the  actual  phenomena  of  the  book  do  not  bear  out  Grafs  view. 
Several  of  the  early  prophecies  bear  so  unmistakably  the  marks  of 
the  time  when  they  were  originally  uttered,  and  are  so  full  of  the 
prophet's  youthful  energy  and  fire,  that  we  cannot  regard  them  as 
compositions  of  some  twenty  years  later.  We  should  probably 
infer  that  Jeremiah  had  preserved  in  written  form  some  of  his 
oracles,  but  that  in  dictating  to  Baruch  he  did  not  feel  himself 
bound  to  a  literal  reproduction  when  it  seemed  desirable  to  alter 
or  expand  to  suit  the  new  conditions.  Stade's  view  that  Jeremiah 
experienced  a  repetition  of  the  prophetic  ecstasy  in  which  the 
prophecies  were  originally  spoken,  in  order  to  repeat  the  oracles 
themselves,  is  quite  unnecessary  and  unsupported  by  any  tangible 
evidence. 

against  Israel.  This  can  hardly  be  correct.  The  roll  was  of 
a  threatening  character,  designed  to  bring  Judah  to  repentance. 
What  Jeremiah  had  said  of  the  northern  tribes  was  in  the  nature 
of  promise,  and  was  therefore  unsuitable  for  the  purpose  of  the 
roll  as  described  in  3.  We  should  read,  with  the  LXX,  '  Jerusa- 
lem '  in  place  of  '  Israel.'  "Against '  is  probably  the  best  rendering, 
though  we  might  translate  'concerning.' 

and  against  all  the  nations.  Duhm  and  Rothstein  consider 
this  an  addition,  later  than  xxv,  and  perhaps  than  xlvi-li.  But 
this  is  quite  arbitrary,  resting  on  the  theory  we  have  already  seen 
occasion  to  reject  (vol.  i.  pp.  77,  78),  that  Jeremiah  was  not  a 
prophet  to  the  nations. 


JEREMIAH  3G.  3-6.     B  153 

from  the  days  of  Josiah,  even  unto  this  day.     It  may  be  3 
that  the   house  of  Judah  will  hear  all  the  evil  which 
I  purpose  to  do  unto  them  ;  that  they  may  return  every 
man  from  his  evil  way ;  that  I  may  forgive  their  iniquity 
and  their  sin.     Then  Jeremiah  called  Baruch  the  son  of  4 
Neriah ;  and  Baruch  wrote  from  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah 
all  the  words  of  the  Lord,  which  he  had  spoken  unto  him, 
upon  a  roll  of  a  book.      And    Jeremiah   commanded  5 
Baruch,  saying,  I  am  ^  shut  up;  I  cannot  go  into  the  house 
of  the  Lord  :  therefore  go  thou,  and  read  in  the  roll,  6 
■^  fOr,  restiained 

3.  Cf.  xxvi.  3. 

4.  Baruch  has  appeared  already  in  xxxii.  12.  He  was  proba- 
bly a  secretary  by  profession,  and  a  faithful  adherent  of  the 
prophet.  He  seems  to  have  been  of  high  standing  sociallj'.  He 
was  the  grandson  of  Maaseiah.  who  is  described  in  2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  8  as  the  governor  of  the  city,  and  the  brother  of  Seraiah, 
who,  according  to  li.  59,  held  an  official  position  (what  position  is 
not  clear  :  see  the  note),  and  went  to  Babylon  on  a  mission  in  the 
reign  of  Zedekiah. 

from  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah :  i.  e.  at  Jeremiah's  dictation, 
but  whether  Jeremiah  read  any  part  of  it  or  spoke  entirely  without 
manuscript  is  not  indicated  by  this  phrase. 

5.  I  am  shut  up.  This  is  a  very  unfortunate  translation,  since 
it  suggests  that  Jeremiah  was  imprisoned,  though  it  is  clear  from 
19  that  this  was  not  the  case.  Several  think  that  he  could  not 
enter  the  Temple  on  account  of  some  ceremonial  impurity.  This  is 
perhaps  favoured  by  the  term  employed  ;  but  it  is  unlikely,  since 
the  actual  reading  did  not  take  place  till  late  in  the  following  year 

see  9%  and  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  writing  of  the 
roll  occupied  the  greater  part  of  this  interval ;  nor  have  we  any 
suggestion  elsewhere  that  Jeremiah  suffered  from  any  long-stand- 
ing condition  of  this  kind.  At  a  later  period  in  the  reign  he  took 
the  Rechabites  to  the  Temple  ^xxxv\  and  was  therefore  free  at 
that  time  from  any  such  disability.  It  is  more  likely  that  the  ex- 
clusion from  the  Temple  is  to  be  connected  with  the  incident 
recorded  in  xx-xxi.  6.  The  authorities  had  probably  forbidden 
him  to  speak  there  again.  If  we  could  place  9  before  this  verse, 
there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  the  other  view,  since  it  might  happen 
that  on  the  fast  day  Jeremiah  was  in  a  condition  of  ceremonial 
uncleanness.     But  this  would  be  a  somewhat  arbitrary  expedient. 

6.  It  is  not  clear  whether  we  should  read  '  on  the  fast  day  '  or 


154  JEREMIAH  36.  7-9.     B 

which  thou  hast  written  from  my  mouth,  the  words  of  the 
Lord  in  the  ears  of  the  people  in  the  Lord's  house  upon 
^  the  fast  day  :  and  also  thou  shalt  read  them  in  the  ears 

7  of  all  Judah  that  come  out  of  their  cities.  It  maybe  ^'they 
will  present  their  supplication  before  the  Lord,  and  will 
return  every  one  from  his  evil  way  :  for  great  is  the  anger 
and  the  fury  that  the  Lord  hath  pronounced  against  this 

8  people.  And  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah  did  according  to 
all  that  Jeremiah  the  prophet  commanded  him,  reading  in 
the  book  the  words  of  the  Lord  in  the  Lord's  house. 

9  Now  it  came  to  pass  in  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the 
son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  in  the  ninth  month,  that  all 
the  people  in  Jerusalem,  and  all  the  people  that  came  from 

*  fOr,  a  fast  day  ^  Heb.  their  supplication  will  fall. 

'■  on  a  fast  day  ; '  but  from  the  statement  in  g  we  gather  that  it  was 
n-ot  a  fixed  fast  day,  but  one  specially  appointed  on  which  the 
reading  took  place.  If  the  verses  are  in  the  right  order,  the 
margin  is  accordingly  to  be  preferred.  Jeremiah  chose  a  fast  day 
on  account  of  the  large  numbers  that  would  be  collected  from  the 
cities  of  Judah  as  well  as  from  the  capital,  and  the  chastened  and 
more  receptive  mood  in  which  the  people  would  be. 

7.  If  their  supplication  falls  before  Yahweh  (see  margin),  He 
will  be  constrained  to  take  notice  of  it. 

for  great . . .  this  people :  cf.  2  Kings  xxii.  13,  Josiah's  words 
when  he  heard  the  book  of  the  Law  read. 

8.  This  verse  gives  in  summary  form  what  is  told  at  length  in 
the  following  verses. 

9.  For  the  fifth  year  the  LXX  reads  'the  eighth  year,'  which 
has  not  the  slightest  claim  to  acceptance.  The  delay  till  the  fifth 
year  is  difficult  enough  to  understand,  but  that  the  reading  should 
be  postponed  three  years  longer  is  quite  incredible.  The  ninth 
month  was  a  winter  month,  embracing  parts  of  November  and 
December  ;  the  weather  was  often  cold  (cf.  22)  and  wet  (cf  Ezra 
X.  9). 

all  the  people  .  .  .  proclaimed  a  fast.  This  is  the  more 
generally  accepted  rendering,  though  some  (including  Rothstein 
and  Condamin)  translate  *  the3''  summoned  to  a  fast  all  the  people.' 
This  fast  was  apparently  not  held  on  a  stated  fast-day  but  was 
speciall}'  summoned,  probably  in  c(>nnexion  with  the  political 
situation. 


JEREMIAH   36.  10-12.     B  155 

the  cities  of  Judah  unto  Jerusalem,  proclaimed  a  fast  be- 
fore the  Lord.     Then  read  Baruch  in  the  book  the  words  '^ 
of  Jeremiah  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  in  the  chamber  of 
Gemariah  the  son  of  Shaphan  the  scribe,  in  the  upper 
court,  at  the  entry  of  the  new  gate  of  the  Lord's  house,  in 
the  ears  of  all  the  people.     And  when  Micaiah  the  son  of  '  i 
Gemariah,  the  son  of  Shaphan,  had  heard  out  of  the  book 
all  the  words  of  the  Lord,  he  went  down  into  the  king's  13 
house,  into  the  scribe's  chamber :  and,  lo,  all  the  princes 
sat  there,  even   Elishama  the  scribe,  and  Delaiah  the 
son  of  Shemaiah,  and  Elnathan  the  son  of  Achbor,  and 

10.  The  precision  with  which  the  locality  is  defined  is  evidence 
that  the  account  proceeds  from  an  eye-witness,  no  doubt  Baruch. 
Gemariah  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Shaphan,  who  held  the  very 
important  post  of  secretary  under  Josiah,  and  read  to  him  the 
Book  of  the  Law  which  Hilkiah  had  discovered.  If  this  Shaphan 
is  to  be  identified  with  the  Shaphan  mentioned  in  xxvi.  24,  Gema- 
riah was  the  brother  of  Ahikam,  Jeremiah's  powerful  protector, 
and  uncle  of  Gedaliah.  He  was,  we  may  assume,  friendly  to 
Jeremiah,  since  his  chamber  was  placed  at  Baruch's  disposal. 

the  upper  court:  probably  to  be  identified  with  '  the  inner 
court'  mentioned  in  i  Kings  vi,  36,  vii,  12.  For  '  the  new  gate  ' 
see  note  on  xxvi,  lo. 

11.  Micaiah  had  apparently  been  left  in  charge  of  Gemariah's 
chamber,  while  the  owner  was  at  the  council  of  princes,  if  we  are 
to  identify  the  Gemariah  in  10  with  the  Gemariah  in  12.  Possibly 
his  father  had  instructed  him  to  report  to  the  council  if  anything 
should  be  said  or  done  that  called  for  official  notice. 

12.  he  went  down:  the  palace  being  lower  than  the  Temple  ; 
contrast  xxvi.  lo. 

Elishama  the  scribe.  If  the  designation  '  the  scribe  '  in  ro 
is  to  be  attached  to  Gemariah,  who  would  thus  have  succeeded 
his  father  Shaphan  in  the  office,  we  should  either  have  to  suppose 
that  he  had  been  superseded  by  Elishama,  or  that  there  were  two 
secretaries.  More  probably  '  the  scribe  '  in  10  is  the  designation 
of  Shaphan,  so  that  Gemariah,  while  a  member  of  the  council  of 
princes,  did  not  hold  the  post  of  secretary.  The  secretary's 
chamber  was  attached  to  the  palace  rather  than  the  Temple,  as  is 
natural  with  a  State  official. 

Elnathan  the  son  of  Achbor  was  sent  by  Jehoiakim  to  pro- 
cure Uriah's  extradition  from  I' gypt.  (Thenotron  xxvi.  22  should 
be  consulted,  ' 


156  JEREMIAH  36.  13-15.     B 

Gemariah  the  son  of  Shaphan,  and  Zedekiah  the  son  of 

13  Hananiah,  and  all  the  princes.  Then  Micaiah  declared 
unto  them  all  the  words  that  he  had  heard,  when  Baruch 

14  read  the  book  in  the  ears  of  the  people.  Therefore  all 
the  princes  sent  Jehudi  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  the  son  of 
Shelemiah,  the  son  of  Cushi,  unto  Baruch,  saying,  Take 
in  thine  hand  the  roll  wherein  thou  hast  read  in  the  ears 
of  the  people,  and  come.     So  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah 

^5  took  the  roll  in  his  hand,  and  came  unto  them.     And  they 

Gemariah  the  son  of  Shaphan;  probably  (though  some 
question  this)  to  be  identified  with  the  Gemariah  of  10. 

all  the  princes  :  i.  e.  all  the  other  princes.  It  is  curious  that 
the  same  phrase  should  be  used  twice  in  the  same  sentence  with 
a  different  application. 

14.  Jehudi  .  .  .  Cnshi.  It  is  very  surprising  that  a  subordi- 
nate oflficial  should  have  his  ancestry  mentioned  back  for  three 
generations.  It  is  rare  for  even  the  grandfather  to  be  mentioned, 
though  it  might  be  done,  as  in  the  case  of  Micaiah  (11),  where  the 
grandfather  was  a  person  of  distinction,  or  perhaps  to  avoid  con- 
fusion where  several  bore  the  same  name.  It  is  noteworthy  in 
this  case  that  the  first  and  last  are  not  individual  but  national  names, 
'Jew"  and  'Cushite.'  Hitzig  infers  that  Cushi  was  an  Ethiopian 
who  had  been  naturalized  as  a  Jew  ;  his  son  and  grandson  bore 
names  compounded  with  Yahweh,  expressing  their  adhesion  to  His 
service  ;  but  only  in  the  next  generation  was  full  Jewish  citizenship 
possible,  and  this  is  expressed  in  the  name  Jehudi.  This  view  is 
accepted  by  several  scholars.  On  the  other  hand,  the  name  Cushi 
is  found  in  the  genealogy  of  the  prophet  Zephaniah  (Zeph.  i.  i), 
though  he  can  hardly  have  been  a  foreigner  since  he  was  the 
grandson  of  Hezekiah,  probably  the  king  of  that  name  (this  accounts 
for  his  genealogy  going  back  to  the  great-grandfather).  Duhm 
supposes  that  names  of  this  kind  are  to  be  explained  by  circum- 
stances. Cushi  might  be  given  to  a  son  born  during  a  journey  to 
Ethiopia,  or  born  of  an  Ethiopian  mother;  Jehudi  to  a  son  born 
after  the  father's  return,  to  distinguish  him  from  sons  born  abroad, 
or  to  distinguish  the  son  of  a  Jewish  mother  from  half-brothers 
born  of  a  foreign  mother.  Cornill  and  Rothstein  prefer  to  read 
'Jehudi  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  and  Shelemiah  the  son  of  Cushi.' 
The  alteration  to  our  present  text  is  thought  to  have  been 
occasioned  by  the  reflection  that  one  messengeralone  was  wanted, 
and  that  in  21  Jehudi  alone  was  sent.  There  is  no  evidence, 
however,  to  support  this  change  of  text,  and  the  sending  of  two 
messengers  is  improbable. 


JEREMIAH  36.  iC-iy.     B  157 

said  unto  him,  Sit  down  now,  and  read  it  in  our  ears.     So 
Baruch  read  it  in  their  ears.     Now  it  came  to  pass,  when  16 
they  had  heard  all  the  words,  they  turned  in  fear  one 
toward  another,  and  said  unto  Baruch,  We  will  surely  tell 
the  king  of  all  these  words.     And  they  asked  Baruch,  I'j 
saying,  Tell  us  now,  How  didst  thou  write  all  these  words 
at  his  mouth  ?    Then  Baruch  answered  them.  He  pro-  18 
nounced  all  these  words  unto  me  with  his  mouth,  and 
I  wrote  them  with  ink  in  the  book.      Then  said  the  19 
princes  unto  Baruch,  Go,  hide  thee,  thou  and  Jeremiah  ; 


15.  Sit  down.  The  courteous  treatment  accorded  to  Baruch  is 
noteworthy.  Some  follow  the  LXX  in  pointing  the  word  differ- 
ently, rendering  '  Read  it  again  in  our  ears.'  But  this  is  to  be 
rejected. 

16.  The  princes  are  terrified  at  the  contents  of  the  roll,  and 
feel  that  they  must  let  the  king  know.  Omit  '  unto  Baruch,'  with 
the  LXX  ;  the  words  express  the  result  of  their  deliberations 
among  themselves. 

17.  at  his  mouth.  These  words  should  probably  be  omitted, 
with  the  LXX  ;  they  anticipate  Baruch's  answer. 

18.  Baruch's  answer  is  intended  to  assure  the  princes  that  the 
whole  roll  was  word  for  word  Jeremiah's  composition;  he  had 
simply  performed  the  mechanical  task  of  taking  down  the  oracles 
as  the  prophet  dictated  them.  It  is  remarkable  that  Jeremiah's 
name  is  not  mentioned  here,  though  in  a  formal  statement  of  this 
kind  it  would  be  expected.  We  should  read,  with  the  LXX  and 
Syriac,  'Jeremiah  pronounced.' 

with  ink.  The  LXX  omits  the  words,  which  occur  here  only, 
probably  incorrectly.  The  detail  would  seem  to  Baruch  worth 
mentioning.  Giesebrecht  reads  '  with  my  hand  ; '  Duhm's  scoff 
that  the  princes  would  know  that  he  had  not  written  it  with  his 
foot  is  hypercritical,  for  Baruch  might  quite  well  have  said  '  I 
wrote  them  with  my  own  hand,'  to  bring  out  that  he  alone  had 
executed  the  mechanical  part  of  the  task  (cf.  Gal.  vi.  11).  But 
there  is  no  need  to  alter  the  text. 

19.  The  princes  know  the  king  too  well,  they  had  the  fate  of 
Uriah  before  them,  to  be  in  any  doubt  as  to  the  reception  he  would 
accord  to  the  prophet  and  his  secretary.  So  they  give  Baruch 
timely  warning  that  he  and  Jeremiah  should  go  into  hiding.  It  is 
a  little  remarkable  that  the  king  did  not  issue  the  order  for  their 
arrest  as  soon  as  the  princes  made  their  report,  before  he  had  the 
roll  read  to  him. 


158  JEREMIAH  36.  20-23.     B 

20  and  let  no  man  know  where  ye  be.  And  they  went  in  to 
the  king  into  the  court ;  but  they  had  laid  up  the  roll  in 
the  chamber  of  Elishama  the  scribe  ;  and  they  told  all  the 

21  words  in  the  ears  of  the  king.  So  the  king  sent  Jehudi  to 
fetch  the  roll :  and  he  took  it  out  of  the  chamber  of 
Elishama  the  scribe.  And  Jehudi  read  it  in  the  ears  of 
the  king,  a"nd  in  the  ears  of  all  the  princes  which  stood 

22  beside  the  king.  Now  the  king  sat  in  the  winter  house 
in  the  ninth  month ;  and  there  was  a  fire  in  the  brasier 

23  burning  before  him.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jehudi 
had  read  three  or  four  ^  leaves,  that  the  king  cut  it  with 

*  fOr,  columns 

20.  the  court:  i.  e.  the  inner  court.  But  this  would  be  open, 
whereas  according  to  22  the  king  was  in  the  winter  house. 
Rothstein  and  Giesebrecht  independently  suggested  'into  the 
cabinet,'  which  involves  very  slight  change.  This  is  accepted  by 
Duhm  and  Cornill  (see  also  Driver's  note). 

they  had  laid  up  the  roll :  probably  hoping  that  the  king 
might  not  ask  for  it,  being  content  with  the  oral  report  they  were 
going  to  make  to  him. 

22.  The  fact  that  he  was  in  the  winter  house  is  mentioned  to 
account  for  the  fire  in  the  brasier,  which  plays  so  important  a  part 
in  the  story.  The  LXX  rightly  omits  '  in  the  ninth  month  ; '  it  is 
a  gloss  introduced  from  9,  to  explain  why  the  king  was  in  the 
winter  house  sitting  before  the  fire.  The  sense  of  the  last  clause 
is  correctly  given  in  the  R.V.,  but,  as  the  italics  suggest,  the 
Hebrew  is  unsatisfactory.  It  is,  in  fact,  ungrammatical  ;  the 
alteration  of  one  letter  {^eth  into  ''esh,  'fire')  gives  the  requisite 
sense.     The  brasier  was  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  room. 

23.  The  R.V.  does  not  bring  out  the  meaning.  It  suggests  that 
Jehudi  read  three  or  four  leaves,  and  then,  without  hearing  more, 
the  king  cut  the  whole  roll  to  pieces  and  burned  it.  But  24  implies 
that  the  king  heard  the  whole  roll  read.  Driver's  rendering 
brings  out  the  sense,  '  as  often  as  Jehudi  read  three  or  four  columns, 
he  cut  them.'  Had  he  burnt  the  whole  roll  at  once  the  knife 
would  have  been  less  necessary,  since  the  roll  could  have  been 
tossed  on  the  fire  as  it  was,  unless  indeed  it  was  too  large  to  burn 
readily  in  that  wa3%  As  every  three  or  four  columns  were  read, 
he  cut  them  off  and  burnt  them  and  let  the  reading  proceed.  At 
the  end  of  the  process  the  whole  roll  was  burned  ;  tlie  king  found 
-nothing  to  save  from  the  fire. . 


JEREMIAH  36.  24-27.     B  159 

the  penknife,  and  cast  it  into  the  fire  that  was  in  the 
brasier,  until  all  the  roll  was  consumed  in  the  fire  that  was 
in  the  brasier.     And  they  were  not  afraid,  nor  rent  their  24 
garments,  neither  the  king,  nor  any  of  his  servants  that 
heard  all  these  words.     Moreover  Elnathan  and  Delaiah  25 
and  Gemariah  had  made  intercession  to  the  king  that  he 
would  not  burn  the  roll :  but  he  would  not  hear  them. 
And  the  king  commanded  Jerahmeel  ^  the  king's  son,  and  26 
Seraiah  the  son  of  Azriel,  and   Shelemiah   the  son  of 
Abdeel,  to  take  Baruch  the  scribe  and  Jeremiah  the 
prophet :  but  the  Lord  hid  them. 

Then  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah,  after  27 

"■  Or,  the  son  of  Hammelech 

leaves.  The  margin  columns  is  better.  The  word  literally 
means  '  doors.'  A  similar  usage  is  found  in  Arabic  and  Rabbinical 
Hebrew. 

the  penknife:   literally  '  a  scribe's  knife.' 

24.  There  is  perhaps  an  intentional  contrast  with  the  conduct 
of  Josiah  when  he  heard  the  Law  Book  read  (2  Kings  xxii.  11). 

25.  On  the  attitude  of  Elnathan  see  note  on  xxvi.  22.  The 
LXX  inverts  (with  a  difference  in  the  names)  the  true  sense  of 
the  verse. 

26.  the  kingf's  son  :  probably  not  the  son  of  Jehoiakim,  who 
was  himself  barely  thirty  at  the  time,  but  a  prince  of  the  blood. 

but  the  I.ORS  hid  them;  The  LXX  reads  simply  *  but  they 
were  hidden.'  The  Hebrew  is  finer  ;  Baruch  recognizes  in  these 
words  that  it  was  due  to  God's  watchful  care  that  their  retreat  was 
not  discovered. 

27-31.  Duhm  strikes  out  these  verses  as  due  to  the  redactor. 
Certainly,  apart  from  the  style,  there  are  difficulties.  The  words 
of  Jehoialiim  in  29  were  not  really  uttered  by  him  to  Jeremiah, 
since  king  and  prophet  did  not  meet.  The  prediction  that  he 
should  have  no  successor  on  the  throne  was  not  absolutely  true, 
since  his  son  Jchoiachin  did  succeed  him.  But  as  he  reigned  only 
three  months,  and  was  then  deposed  and  taken  to  Babylon, 
Jeremiah  might  well  have  expressed  himself  in  this  way  ;  and  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  literally  fulfilled  tells  against  the  view  that  it  is 
an  editorial  insertion  from  xxii.  30.  The  quotation  from  the  roll 
is  not  exact,  but  it  agrees  sufficiently  with  the  tenor  of  Jeremiah's 
predictions.  Erbt  more  moderately  assigns  29-31  to  an  editor, 
Rothstcin  simply  29''- 30^*  ('Thou  hast  burned.  .  .  king  ofjudah'). 


i6o  JEREMIAH  3G.  28—37.  i.     BE, 

that  the  king  had  burned  the  roll,  and  the  words  which 

28  Baruch  wrote  at  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah,  saying,  Take 
thee  again  another  roll,  and  write  in  it  all  the  former 
words  that  were  in  the  first  roll,  which  Jehoiakim  the 

29  king  of  Judah  hath  burned.  And  concerning  Jehoiakim 
king  of  Judah  thou  shalt  say,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  : 
Thou  hast  burned  this  roll,  saying.  Why  hast  thou  written 
therein,  saying.  The  king  of  Babylon  shall  certainly  come 
and  destroy  this  land,   and  shall  cause  to  cease  from 

30  thence  man  and  beast  ?  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord 
concerning  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah :  He  shall  have 
none  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David :  and  his  dead 
body  shall  be  cast  out  in  the  day  to  the  heat,  and  in  the 

31  night  to  the  frost.  And  I  will  punish  him  and  his  seed 
and  his  servants  for  their  iniquity ;  and  I  will  bring  upon 
them,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  upon 
the  men  of  Judah,  all  the  evil  that  I  have  pronounced 

32  against  them,  but  they  hearkened  not.  Then  took  Jere- 
miah another  roll,  and  gave  it  to  Baruch  the  scribe,  the 
son  of  Neriah ;  who  wrote  therein  from  the  mouth  of 
Jeremiah  all  the  words  of  the  book  which  Jehoiakim 
king  of  Judah  had  burned  in  the  fire  :  and  there  were 
added  besides  unto  them  many  like  words. 

37      [R]  And  Zedekiah  the  son  of  Josiah  reigned  as  king, 

30.  On  the  closing  threat  see  note  on  xxii.  1 8, 19  (vol.  i ,pp.  255-6  . 
32.  On  the  second  edition  of  the  roll  see  vol  i,  pp.  61,  62. 

xxxvii.  i-io.  Jeremiah  Warns  Zedekiah  that  the  Chaldeans 
^  WILL  Return  and  Burn  Jerusalem. 

This  section  gives  us  an  account  of  a  deputation  sent  by  Zede- 
kiah to  Jeremiah  in  the  interval  of  relief  from  the  siege  occasioned 
by  the  coming  of  the  Egyptian  army,  and  the  reply  the  prophet  sent 
to  the  king.  The  relation  of  this  narrative  to  that  in  xxi  has  been 
discussed  in  the  Introduction  to  that  chapter,  to  which  the  reader 
should  refer  (vol.  i.  p.  246).   Here  it  need  simply  be  said  that  the  nar- 


JEREMIAH  37.  2,  3.     RB  161 

instead  of  ^  Coniah  the  son  of  Jehoiakim,  whom  Nebu- 
chadrezzar king  of  Babylon  made  king  in  the  land  of 
Judah.     But  neither  he,  nor  his  servants,  nor  the  people  2 
of  the  land,  did  hearken  unto  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
which  he  spake  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah. 

[b]  And  Zedekiah  the  king  sent  Jehucal  the  son  of  3 
*  See  ch.  xxii.  24. 

ratives  probably  refer  to  different  incidents,  xxi  to  an  earlier,  xxxvii. 
i-io  to  a  later  stage  in  the  conflict.  The  present  story  is  quite 
trustworthy  and  comes  to  us  from  the  hand  of  Baruch,  but  i,  2  are 
presumably  editorial,  and  3-10  may  have  been  touched  by  the 
editor's  hand. 

xxxvii.  I,  2.  Zedekiah  was  appointed  by  Nebuchadrezzar  king 
in  place  of  Coniah,  but  neither  he  nor  his  people  gave  heed  to  the 
message  of  Jeremiah. 

3-10.  Zedekiah  sent  to  Jeremiah  to  entreat  his  prayers.  Jere- 
miah had  not  yet  been  imprisoned,  and  the  news  that  an  Egyptian 
army  was  coming  had  caused  the  Chaldeans  to  raise  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem.  Jeremiah  sends  the  answer  to  the  king  that  the 
Egyptian  army  will  return  to  Egypt,  while  the  Chaldeans  shall 
return  and  burn  Jerusalem.  Let  them  not  deceive  themselves 
with  the  delusion  that  they  will  abandon  the  siege.  Nay,  though 
the  whole  army  contained  none  but  wounded  men,  they  would 
rise  up  and  burn  the  city. 

xxxvii.  1,  2.  It  is  surprising  to  find  this  mention  of  Zedekiah's 
accession  at  this  point  in  the  book,  as  if  he  had  not  been  mentioned 
before.  The  editor  wishes  to  warn  the  reader  that  in  the  follow- 
ing narratives  he  is  not,  as  in  xxxv,  xxxvi,  concerned  with  the 
reign  of  Jehoiakim.  This  may  perhaps  account  for  the  reading  in  ^ 
the  LXX,  '  instead  of  Jehoiakim,'  the  meaning  being  not  neces- 
sarily that  Zedekiah  was  his  immediate  successor,  but  in  the 
narrative  that  now  follows  the  king  is  not  Jehoiakim  but  Zedekiah. 
If  the  Hebrew  text  is  original,  a  scribe  may  have  struck  out 
'  Coniah  and '  on  account  of  the  statement  a  few  verses  earlier 
(xxxvi.  30)  that  Jehoiakim  should  have  *  none  to  sit  upon  the 
throne.'  The  statement  in  2  is  not  an  appropriate  introduction  to 
the  king's  request  for  prayer  in  3. 

3.  The  request  is  like  that  made  by  Hezekiah  to  Isaiah  (Isa. 
xxxvii.  2-5).  There  is  this  difference  :  Hezekiah  sent  when  matters 
seemed  most  desperate ;  Zedekiah  when  the  raising  of  the  siege 
had  brought  a  reprieve.  The  reply  of  Jeremiah  seems  irrelevant  to 
the  request.  It  is  rather  an  answer  to  such  a  question  as.  What 
is  the  issue  to  be  ?  Will  the  Chaldeans  abandon  their  enterprise  ? 
II  M 


i62  JEREMIAH  37.  4-9.     BRB 

Shelemiah,  and  Zephaniah  the  son  of  Maaseiah  the 
priest,  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  saying,  Pray  now  unto 

4  the  Lord  our  God  for  us.  [R]  Now  Jeremiah  came  in 
and  went  out  among  the  people :  for  they  had  not  put 

5  him  into  prison.  [B]  And  Pharaoh's  army  was  come 
forth  out  of  Egypt :  and  when  the  Chaldeans  that  be- 
sieged Jerusalem  heard  tidings  of  them,  they  brake  up 

6  from  Jerusalem.      Then  came  the  word  of  the  Lord 

7  unto  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  saying.  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
the  God  of  Israel :  Thus  shall  ye  say  to  the  king  of 
Judah,  that  sent  you  unto  me  to  inquire  of  me ;  Behold, 
Pharaoh's  army,  which  is  come  forth  to  help  you,  shall 

S  return  to  Egypt  into  their  own  land.    And  the  Chaldeans 

hall  come  again,  and  fight  against  this  city ;  and  they 

9  shall   take  it,  and  burn  it  with  fire.      Thus  saith  the 

Possibly  the  prayer  is  understood  to  be  an  entreaty  for  direction 
rather  than  for  deliverance,  as  7  suggests ;  possibly  the  terras  of 
the  passage  have  been  influenced  by  the  account  in  Isa.  xxxvii.  2-5. 
Jehucal  appears  a  little  later  as  one  of  Jeremiah's  enemies 
(xxxviii.  1-6).  On  Zephaniah  see  notes  on  xxi.  2,  xxix.  25. 
Erbt  supposes  that  Jehucal  has  intruded  into  the  text  from  xxxviii, 
r,  and  that  Pashhur  has  been  transferred  from  xxxvii.  i  to  xxxviii. 
I.  Thus  we  should  have  the  same  deputation  as  in  xxi.  r.  But 
if  there  were  really  two  deputations,  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
members  of  it  should  have  been  the  same.  Jehucal's  attitude  in 
xxxviii.  I  is  no  warrant  for  removing  his  name  here. 

4.  This  verse  may  be  editorial  ;  in  Baruch's  memoirs  the 
incidents  would  presumably  be  narrated  in  chronological  order,  so 
that  it  would  be  quite  clear  that  the  imprisonment  had  not  yet 
occurred,  whereas  according  to  the  present  arrangement  it  is  nar- 
rated in  xxxii,  xxxiii. 

5.  This  comes  at  an  inappropriate  point :  strictly  it  should  have 
preceded  3.  But  the  statement  itself  probably  comes  from  Baruch. 
The  Pharaoh  mentioned  is  Pharaoh  Hophra  (590-571  b.c);  see 
note  on  xliv.  30. 

7.  We  do  not  know  why  the  Egyptian  relief  army  retreated  to 
Egypt.  Perhaps  it  was  intimidated  at  the  approach  of  the  Chal- 
deans, and  yielded  the  ground  without  a  struggle ;  perhaps,  as 
Ezek.  XXX.  21  suggests,  it  had  suffered  defeat. 

9,  10.     These  verses  are  no  mere  addition  made  because  the 


JEREMIAH  37.  io,ii.     B  163 

Lord  :  Deceive  not  ^  yourselves,  saying,  The  Chaldeans 
shall  surely  depart  from  us :  for  they  shall  not  depart. 
For  though  ye  had  smitten  the  whole  army  of  the  Chal-  10 
deans  that  light  against  you,  and  there  remained  but 
b  wounded  men  among  them,  yet  should  they  rise  up 
every  man  in  his  tent,  and  burn  this  city  with  fire. 
And  it  came  to  pass  that  when  the  army  of  the  Chal-  n 

*  Heb.  your  souls.  ''  Heb,  thrust  through. 

redactor  cannot  bring  himself  to  stop.  They  are  expressed  in  so 
striking  a  way,  and  so  apt  to  the  self-deceiving  optimism  of  the 
Jews,  that  we  may  be  well  assured  that  Jeremiah  spoke  them.  So 
certain  is  the  return  of  the  Chaldeans  and  the  destruction  of  the 
city,  that  if  the  Jews  had  smitten  the  whole  army  of  the  enemy, 
and  only  some  desperately  wounded  (see  margin)  soldiers  were 
left,  they  would  rise  up  and  burn  the  city.  We  should  probably 
connect  'every  man  in  his  tent'  with  'wounded  men,'  strike  out 
'among  them,'  and  read  with  the  LXX  'yet should  these  rise  up.' 
The  point  of  '  every  man  in  his  tent'  is  perhaps  that  out  of  several 
inmates  of  a  tent,  only  one  survivor  was  left.  All  that  had  hap- 
pened so  far  was  a  mere  strategic  retreat,  and  already  the  hopes 
of  the  Jews  were  rising  high  ;  but  '  things  are  what  they  are,  and 
their  consequences  will  be  what  they  will  be  ;  why  then  should 
we  deceive  ourselves  ? '  So  settled  in  God's  counsel  is  the  city's 
fate,  that  even  the  most  crushing  defeat  of  its  enemy  could  not 
save  it  from  destruction  at  their  hands. 

xxxvii.  11-21.  Jeremiah  is  Arrested  and  Imprisoned. 
Zedekiah  Consults  him  and  Ameliorates  his  Lot. 

On  this  incident  see  vol.  i,  p.  25.  The  account  is  no  doubt 
derived  from  Baruch's  memoirs. 

xxxvii.  11-15.  When  the  Chaldeans  had  raised  the  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem for  fear  of  the  relief  army  from  Egypt,  Jeremiah  was  going 
into  the  land  of  Benjamin,  but  was  arrested  by  Irijah  as  a  deserter 
to  the  enemy,  in  spite  of  his  denial.  The  princes  beat  him  and 
put  him  in  prison. 

16-21.  After  many  days'  confinement  Zedekiah  had  him  brought 
to  the  palace,  and  inquired  if  there  was  any  message  from 
Yahweh.  Jeremiah  told  him  that  he  should  be  delivered  into 
Nebuchadrezzar's  hands.  He  then  remonstrated  with  him  on 
account  of  his  imprisonment,  and  pointed  to  the  falsification  of 
the  predictions  that  the  enemy  would  not  come  against  Judah. 
He  added  a  request  that  he  should  not  be  sent  back  to  the  prison  to 
M  2 


i64  JEREMIAH  37.  12-14.     B 

deans  was  broken  up  from  Jerusalem  for  fear  of  Pharaoh's 

12  army,  then  Jeremiah  went  forth  out  of  Jerusalem  to  go 
into  the  land  of  Benjamin,  to  receive  his  portion  ^  there, 

13  in  the  midst  of  the  people.  And  when  he  was  in  the 
gate  of  Benjamin,  a  captain  of  the  ward  was  there,  whose 
name  was  Irijah,  the  son  of  Shelemiah,  the  son  of  Hana- 
niah  ;  and  he  laid  hold  on  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  saying, 

14  Thou  fallest  away  to  the  Chaldeans.  Then  said  Jeremiah, 
It  is  false ;  I  fall  not  away  to  the  Chaldeans ;  but  he 
hearkened  not  to  him  :  so  Irijah  laid  hold  on  Jeremiah, 

^  Heb./rom  thence. 

die  there.     So  the  king  had  him  removed  to  the  court  of  the  guard, 
and  supplied  with  bread. 

xxxvii.  11.  The  interruption  of  the  siege  made  it  possible  for 
Jeremiah  to  undertake  his  journey. 

12.  The  precise  object  of  his  journey  is  uncertain,  since  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  is  not  clear,  perhaps  through  textual  cor- 
ruption, perhaps  through  its  use  of  technical  language  which  does 
not  occur  elsewhere.  The  R.V.  gives  what  is  probably  the  sense. 
The  journey  may  be  connected  with  an  earlier  stage  of  the  same 
business  as  is  recorded  in  xxxii,  or  he  may  have  wished  to  get 
more  money  than  he  had,  though  at  a  later  time  he  still  had  some, 
as  we  learn  from  xxxii.  9. 

13.  As  he  was  in  'the  gate  of  Benjamin,'  on  the  north  side  of  the 
city  which  led  into  Benjamite  territory,  he  was  arrested  by  the 
officer  on  duty,  Irijah,  a  grandson  of  Hananiah,  who  is  probably 
not  to  be  identified  with  Jeremiah's  antagonist  (xxviii),  since  the 
latter  was  presumably  a  younger  man.  Nor  are  we  to  identify  the 
Shelemiah  here  mentioned  with  the  father  of  Jehucal  (3).  The 
charge  of  desertion  was  the  more  plausible  that  similar  desertions 
seem  to  have  been  numerous  (xxxviii.  19  :  cf.  4,  Hi.  15)  ;  Jeremiah's 
advice  to  desert  had  perhaps  already  been  given  to  the  people 
(xxi.  9)  ;  and  he  had  not  concealed  his  conviction  that  the  city 
must  fall.  This  conviction  was  apparently  shared  by  a  good 
number,  and  there  were  probably  many  who  strongly  objected  to 
the  rebellion  against  Babylon.  Those  who  were  more  outspoken, 
if  they  could  not  make  good  their  escape,  may  have  been  thrust 
into  prison. 

14.  Jeremiah  indignantly  denies  the  charge.  On  his  attitude, 
and  its  consistency  with  the  advice  given  to  others  to  desert,  see 
vol.  i,  pp  24,  25 


JEREMIAH  37.  15-18.     B  165 

and  brought  him  to  the  princes.     And  the  princes  were  '5 
wroth  with  Jeremiah,  and  smote  him,  and  put  him  in 
prison  in  the  house  of  Jonathan   the  scribe  ;  for  they 
had  made  that  the  prison.     When  Jeremiah  was  come  16 
into  the  ^  dungeon  house,  and  into  the  cells,  and  Jeremiah 
had  remained  there  many  days  ;  then  Zedekiah  the  king  17 
sent,  and  fetched  him  :  and  the  king  asked  him  secretly 
in  his  house,  and  said,  Is  there  any  word  from  the  Lord  ? 
And  Jeremiah  said.  There  is.     He  said  also.  Thou  shalt 
be   delivered  into  the   hand   of  the  king  of  Babylon. 
Moreover  Jeremiah  said  unto  king  Zedekiah,  Wherein  18 

^  Or,  house  of  the  pit 

15.  Irijah's  arrest  of  the  prophet  may  have  been  simply  in 
obedience  to  his  instructions.  The  decision  as  to  his  fate  rested 
with  the  princes.  These  princes,  it  must  be  remembered,  were 
not  those  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  who  had  been  favourable  to  Jere- 
miah, since  these  had  for  the  most  part  been  taken  to  Babylon, 
but  upstarts  who  had  no  experience  of  government,  hot-headed  and 
short-sighted  patriots,  so  inferior  in  character  to  their  predeces- 
sors that  Jeremiah  contrasted  them  with  the  latter  as  evil  figs 
with  good  figs.  They  no  doubt  disliked  him  for  his  pro-Babylonian 
attitude  ;  but  they  had  been  further  embittered  against  him  by  his 
unsparing  denunciation  of  the  treatment  they  had  accorded  to 
their  Hebrew  slaves. 

the  house  of  Jonathan  the  scrihe.  Why  this  was  used  is  not 
clear.  Perhaps  the  other  prisons  were  full,  and  a  high  official  might 
be  specially  entrusted  with  such  political  prisoners  as  it  was 
desired  to  keep  under  the  strictest  observation.  As  we  gather 
from  16,  Jeremiah  was  consigned  to  an  underground  dungeon, 
where  he  would  have  died  in  due  course  (20),  had  the  princes 
had  their  way. 

16.  When.  Read,  with  the  LXX,  '  And  Jeremiah  came,'  and 
place  a  full  stop  at  the  end  of  the  sentence. 

cells  :  or  *  vaults.' 

many  days.  When  he  was  removed  the  siege  seems  to  have 
been  resumed. 

17.  Zedekiah  believed  in  the  real  inspiration  of  Jeremiah,  and 
would  have  followed  his  counsel  had  he  dared.  But  he  was  in 
terror  of  the  princes,  so  he  could  consult  the  prophet  only  in 
secret  (cf.  xxxviii,  5,  24-27). 

18-20.  A  simple  and  dignified  remonstrance  follows  on  his  unjust 


i66  JEREMIAH  37.  19—88.  i.     B 

have  I  sinned  against  thee,  or  against  thy  servants,  or 
against  this   people,  that   ye  have  put  me  in  prison  ? 

19  Where  now  are  your  prophets  which  prophesied  unto 
you,  saying,  The  king  of  Babylon  shall  not  come  against 

20  you,  nor  against  this  land  ?  And  now  hear,  I  pray  thee, 
O  my  lord  the  king  :  let  my  supplication,  I  pray  thee, 
^  be  accepted  before  thee  ;  that  thou  cause  me  not  to 
return  to  the  house  of  Jonathan  the  scribe,  lest  I  die 

21  there.  Then  Zedekiah  the  king  commanded,  and  they 
committed  Jeremiah  into  the  court  of  the  guard,  and 
they  gave  him  daily  a  loaf  of  bread  out  of  the  bakers' 
street,  until  all  the  bread  in  the  city  was  spent.  Thus 
Jeremiah  remained  in  the  court  of  the  guard. 

38      And  Shephatiah  the  son  of  Mattan,  and  Gedaliah  the 

^  Heb./rt//. 

imprisonment ;  then  he  points  the  moral  of  the  failure  of  the  false 
prophets;  and  finally  he  proffers  his  petition  that  the  king  will  not 
send  him  back  to  the  dungeon,  where  death  will  be  inevitable. 

21.  Jeremiah  was  innocent,  and  the  king  recognized  this,  yet  he 
did  not  venture  to  set  him  free.  But  he  so  far  braved  the  resent- 
ment of  the  princes  as  to  bring  him  from  the  dungeon  to  the  palace 
and  confine  him  in  the  court  of  the  guard  (see  note  on  xxxii.  2). 
He  also  took  care  for  his  maintenance,  providing  him  a  cake  of 
bread  daily.  The  round  cake  here  indicated  was  only  small,  but 
bread  was  getting  scarcer  and  scarcer,  and  it  sufficed  to  keep  him 
alive. 

Ijakers'  street.    In  the  East  those  who  practise  the  same  trade 
or  business  often  live  in  the  same  street. 

xxxviii.  1-13.  Jeremiah  is  put  into  a  Dungeon  by  the 
Princes,  but  Rescued  by  Ebed-melech. 

Schmidt  pronounces  this  *  manifestly  a  late  legend '  {Enc.  Bib. 
2388),  but  critics  generally,  including  Duhm,  treat  it  as  a  trust- 
worthy narrative  from  the  pen  of  Baruch,  even  if  to  some  extent 
edited. 

xxxviii.  1-6.  Four  of  the  princes  heard  Jeremiah's  words  to  the 
people,  threatening  death  to  those  who  stayed  in  the  city,  but 
promising  life  to  those  who  surrendered,  and  predicting  the 
capture  of  the  city.  They  asked  the  king  that  he  might  be  put  to 
death,  since  he  weakened  the  hands  of  the  defenders  of  the  city. 


JEREMIAH  38.  2-4.     B  167 

son  of  Pashhur,  and  Jucal  the  son  of  Shelemiah,  and 
Pashhur   the  son  of  Malchiah,  heard   the    words  that 
Jeremiah  spake  unto  all  the  people,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  2 
Lord,  He  that  abideth  in  this  city  shall  die  by  the  sword, 
by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pestilence  :  but  he  that  goeth 
forth  to  the  Chaldeans  shall  live,  and  his  life  shall  be  unto 
him  for  a  prey,  and  he  shall  live.     Thus  saith  the  Lord,  3 
This  city  shall  surely  be  given  into  the  hand  of  the  army 
of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  he  shall  take  it.     Then  the  4 
princes  said  unto  the  king,  Let  this  man,  we  pray  thee,  be 

The  king  replied  that  he  was  in  their  hands,  since  the  king  had 
no  power  against  them.  So  they  put  Jeremiah  into  a  dungeon, 
and  his  feet  sank  in  the  mire. 

7-13.  Ebed-melech  the  Ethiopian,  a  palace  eunuch,  heard  of 
this,  and  told  the  king  what  had  been  done  and  that  Jeremiah  was 
in  danger  of  speedy  death.  The  king  commanded  him  to  get  some 
men  to  draw  him  out  of  the  dungeon.  So  he  took  rags  and  let 
them  down  to  Jeremiah,  and  he  put  them  under  his  armholes  to 
cover  the  ropes.  Then  they  drew  him  out  of  the  dungeon  and 
he  remained  in  the  court  of  the  guard. 

xxxviii.  1.  Of  the  first  two  of  the  princes  nothing  furtherisknown, 
except  that  Gedaliah,  who  is  of  course  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
governor  (xl,  xli),  might  be  the  son  of  the  Pashhur  who  beat  Jere- 
miah and  put  him  in  the  stocks  (xx.  1-3).  Jucal  is  the  same  as 
Jehucal  of  xxxvii.  3,  and  Pashhur  accompanied  Zephaniah  on  the 
first  deputation  sent  by  Zedekiah  to  the  prophet  (xxi.  i). 

heard .  .  .  people.  Although  Jeremiah  was  in  confinement, 
he  was  not  prevented  from  receiving  visitors,  as  we  see  from  the 
visit  of  Hanamel  (xxxii)  ;  and  to  these,  but  especially  to  the  soldiers 
who  were  on  duty,  he  would  have  an  opportunity  of  giving  his 
view  of  the  situation  ;  perhaps  more  in  reply  to  questions  than  as 
a  propagandist. 

2.  This  advice  is  that  given  also  in  almost  the  same  words  in 
xxi.  9  (see  the  note).  Some,  including  even  K6berle,  hold  that 
at  this  stage  of  the  conflict  Jeremiah  would  not  have  given  such 
advice,  though  earlier  he  might  have  done  so,  and  suppose  that  the 
passage  has  been  inserted  here  from  xxi.  9. 

4.  From  their  point  of  view,  as  men  responsible  for  the  defence 
of  the  city,  they  were  not  unjustified  in  demanding  Jeremiah's 
death,  for  his  unfaltering  predictions  of  utter  disaster  were  calcu- 
lated to  unnerve  and  discourage  the  defenders. 


i68  JEREMIAH  38.  5-7.     B 

put  to  death ;  forasmuch  as  he  vveakeneth  the  hands  of 
the  men  of  war  that  remain  in  this  city,  and  the  hands  of 
all  the  people,  in  speaking  such  words  unto  them :  for 
this  man  seeketh  not  the  welfare  of  this  people,  but  the 

5  hurt.  And  Zedekiah  the  king  said,  Behold,  he  is  in  your 
hand  :  for  the  king  is  not  he  that  can  do  any  thing 

6  against  you.  Then  took  they  Jeremiah,  and  cast  him  into 
the  ^  dungeon  of  Malchiah  ^  the  king's  son,  that  was  in 
the  court  of  the  guard  :  and  they  let  down  Jeremiah  with 
cords.      And  in  the  dungeon  there  was  no  water,  but 

7  mire  :  and  Jeremiah  sank  in  the  mire.  Now  when  Ebed- 
melech  the  Ethiopian,  an  eunuch,  which  was  in  the  king's 

^  Or,  pit  ^  Or,  the  son  of  Hammelech 

5.  Zedekiah  apparently  yields,  but  not  fully  :  he  leaves  the 
prophet  in  their  hands,  but  without  permission  to  inflict  the  death 
penalty.  He  may  have  expected  them  to  confine  him  again  in  the 
house  of  Jonathan.  The  LXX  reports  the  king's  reply  as  closing 
with  *  hand  ; '  the  rest  is  a  remark  of  the  narrator,  '  for  the  king 
was  not  able  to  do  any  thing  against  them.'  This  is  perhaps 
correct. 

6.  The  princes  did  not  kill  Jeremiah  outright,  perhaps  they 
shrank  with  superstitious  dread  from  such  a  deed ;  but  they  hit  on 
a  plan  which  they  trusted  might  achieve  their  purpose  as  well. 
In  the  court  of  the  guard  there  was  a  cistern  belonging  to  one  of 
the  royal  house  (see  on  xxxvi.  26).  It  was  usual  for  a  house  to 
have  an  underground  cistern  in  which  water  was  stored.  In  this 
cistern,  as  it  happened,  there  was  no  water,  but  a  deep  miry  sedi- 
ment ;  and  the  prophet  was  lowered  into  this  by  cords,  from  which 
we  may  be  sure  no  rags  protected  him,  and  his  feet  sank  in  the 
mire.  It  is  clear  from  the  sequel  that  the  deed  was  done  in  the 
king's  absence  from  the  palace  (7)  and  without  his  knowledge 
(9,  10). 

7.  It  is  very  striking  that  the  only  one  who  intervenes  to  save 
Jeremiah  from  the  terrible  death  the  princes  designed  for  him  was 
an  Ethiopian  eunuch.  Some  think  that  the  women  of  the  harem, 
of  whom  he  may  have  been  in  charge,  had  observed  the  proceed- 
ing, and  informed  Ebed-melech.  But  it  is  questionable  whether 
the  women's  apartments  would  look  on  the  court  of  the  guard. 
Whether  this  was  so  or  not,  no  sooner  did  he  learn  of  it  than  he 
hastened  to  tell  the  king,  who  was  in  the  gate  of  Benjamin  (see 
xxxvii.  13),  feeling  it  to  be  a  matter  of  life  and  death. 


JEREMIAH  38.  8-10.     B  169 

house,  heard  that  they  had  put  Jeremiah  in  the  dungeon  ; 
the  king  then  sitting  in  the  gate  of  Benjamin ;   Ebed-  8 
melech  went  forth  out  of  the  king's  house,  and  spake  to 
the  king,  saying,  My  lord  the  king,  these  men  have  done  9 
evil  in  all  that  they  have  done  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet, 
whom  they  have  cast  into  the  dungeon  ;  and  ^  he  is  like  to 
die  in  the  place  where  he  is  because  of  the  famine :  for 
there  is  no  more  bread  in  the  city.      Then  the  king  com-  10 
^  Heb,  he  is  dead. 

9.  The  LXX  gives  a  different  text  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse : 
'  Thou  hast  acted  wrongly  in  what  thou  hast  done  to  slay  this 
man.'  This  is  accepted  by  Rothstein  (in  Kittel),  but  the  Hebrew 
is  much  better  ;  Zedekiah  had  not  intended  the  prophet's  death,  and 
his  answer  to  the  princes  was  merely  meant  as  a  permission  to 
silence  him.  It  would  have  been  tactless  on  Ebed-melech's  part 
to  accuse  the  king  at  a  time  when  he  was  going  to  ask  for  his 
assistance. 

and  he  is  like  ...  in  the  city.  This  is  a  very  difficult  pas- 
sage. The  Hebrew  text  reads  '  and  he  has  died ; '  it  is  better  to 
omit  a  letter  and  read  '  he  will  die,'  than  to  impose  an  appropriate 
sense  on  the  present  text ;  or  we  might  read  '  to  die  '  (so  appar- 
ently LXX,  but  perhaps  translating  the  present  text).  The  last 
clause  of  the  verse,  if  literally  taken,  gives  no  suitable  meaning.  If 
there  was  no  bread  in  the  city  there  was  no  point  in  the  action  of 
the  princes,  since  famine  would  do  their  work  for  them  ;  and  for 
Ebed-melech  to  rescue  him  would  only  have  been  to  doom  him 
to  a  more  lingering  death.  If  there  was  no  more  food,  he  could 
be  supplied  with  food  as  little  in  the  court  of  the  guard  as  in  the 
cistern.  But  the  words  are  obviously  intended  to  give  a  reason 
why  he  should  be  rescued  at  once ;  so  that  wc  must  rather  inter- 
pret them  as  an  exaggerated  statement  of  the  actual  conditions. 
The  point  will  then  be  that  bread  has  become  so  scarce  that  in  the 
pit  in  which  he  is  confined  Jeremiah  will  miss  even  his  scanty 
ration  (xxxvii.  21),  which  itself  barely  sufficed  to  keep  body  and 
soul  together,  and  will  die  of  hunger.  Possibly  the  food  in  the  city 
had  been  commandeered  for  distribution,  so  that  the  prophet's 
friends  would  have  had  no  opportunity  of  helping  him. 

in  the  place  where  he  is :  better  '  on  the  spot ' :  cf.  2  Sam. 
ii.  23,  where  it  is  said  of  Asahel  that  he  '  died  on  the  spot.' 

10.  thirty  men.  The  Hebrew  is  irregular  and  the  number  too 
large,  even  if  so  many  could  be  spared  from  the  ranks  of  the 
sorely  thinned  defenders  (cf.  4,  'the  men  of  war  that  remain'). 
We  should  read  '  three  men  ; '  these,  with  Ebed-melech,  would  be 


I70  JEREMIAH  38.  11-14.     B 

manded  Ebed-melech  the  Ethiopian,  saying,  Take  from 
hence  thirty  men  with  thee,  and  take  up  Jeremiah  the  pro- 

1 1  phet  out  of  the  dungeon,  before  he  die.  So  Ebed-melech 
took  the  men  with  him,  and  went  into  the  house  of  the  king 
under  the  treasury,  and  took  thence  old  cast  clouts  and 
old  rotten  rags,  and  let  them  down  by  cords  into  the 

12  dungeon  to  Jeremiah.  And  Ebed-melech  the  Ethiopian 
said  unto  Jeremiah,  Put  now  these  old  cast  clouts  and 
rotten  rags  under  thine  armholes  under  the  cords.     And 

13  Jeremiah  did  so.  So  they  drew  up  Jeremiah  with  the 
cords,  and  took  him  up  out  of  the  dungeon  :  and  Jeremiah 
remained  in  the  court  of  the  guard. 

14  Then  Zedekiah  the  king  sent,  and  took  Jeremiah  the 

ample  for  the  purpose.     The  king's  language  shows  that  he  re- 
cognized the  urgency  of  immediate  action. 

11.  Ebed-melech*s  thoughtfulness  to  spare  the  prophet  all 
needless  pain  is  shown  in  his  provision  of  rags  to  save  him  from 
being  cut  by  the  rope,  and  then  by  his  letting  the  rags  down  to 
him  with  ropes  that  he  might  not  have  to  grope  for  them  in  the 
mire.  The  rags  he  procured  from  a  lumber-room  under  the 
treasury. 

12.  The  LXX  reads  simply  'And  he  said,  Put  these  under  the 
cords,  and  Jeremiah  did  so.*  Duhm  prefers  this,  thinking  that 
Jeremiah  would  sit  on  the  rope  and  not  be  tormented  by  being 
pulled  up  with  the  cords  under  his  armholes.  But  faint  with  hunger 
and  ill  usage,  it  was  much  better  for  him  to  be  drawn  up  as  the 
Hebrew  text  describes,  than  risk  a  fall  from  the  rope  as  he  was 
being  raised  ;  besides,  had  he  sat  on  the  rope,  the  provision  of  rags 
would  have  been  a  cruel  refinement  of  kindness  when  time  was  so 
precious.     The  delay  was  worth  while  to  protect  the  armpits. 

13.  The  princes  seem  not  to  have  interfered  further  with  the 
prophet.  Probably  the  end  was  already  very  near,  and  the  king 
granted  his  petition  not  to  be  taken  back  to  the  house  of  Jona- 
than (26). 

xxxviii.   I4-28^     Jeremiah's  Final  Appeal  to  the  King 

TO  Surrender. 
This  narrative  is  taken  from  Baruch's  memoirs,  and  is  unques- 
tionably trustworthy.     Its  information  is  too  precise  to  come  from 
any  but  a  first-hand  source.     Probably  the  interview  took  place 
on  the  same  day  on  which  he  was  rescued  by  Ebed-melech.     The 


JEREMIAH  38.  14.     B  171 

prophet  unto  him  into  the  third  entry  that  is  in  the 


account  which  the  king  told  him  to  give  must  have  been  plausible, 
or  it  would  not  have  satisfied  the  suspicious  princes.  Had  some 
delay  intervened  between  the  rescue  and  the  interview,  the  dread 
that  he  might  be  sent  back  to  his  former  prison  would  have  been 
less  natural ;  it  was,  however,  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world 
to  anticipate  that  the  princes,  thwarted  in  their  first  attempt  on 
Jeremiah,  would  avail  themselves  of  the  king's  permission 
already  accorded  them  (5)  to  send  him  back  to  the  house  of  Jona- 
than, where  he  would  no  longer  be  able  to  weaken  the  defence. 
The  narrative  is  told  without  any  mention  of  Jeremiah's  petition, 
so  that  the  inference  is  suggested  that  the  king  simply  invented 
the  pretext  of  the  petition  in  order  to  conceal  the  real  purpose  of 
the  interview.  But  when  we  have  regard  to  Baruch's  mode  of 
telling  his  story,  this  inference  is  by  no  means  necessary.  It  is 
more  than  probable  that  Jeremiah  would  use  the  opportunity  to 
address  the  king,  as  he  had  done  before,  on  this  matter  of  such 
personal  moment  to  himself,  and  that  the  request  was  actually 
granted.  Accordingly  the  prophet  probably  told  no  actual  lie,  but 
saved  the  king  by  concealing  part,  and  the  more  important  part,  of 
the  truth. 

xxxviii.  14-18.  Zedekiah  inquired  of  Jeremiah  if  he  could  reveal 
anything  to  him,  and  swore  that  he  would  not  kill  him  or  surrender 
him  to  his  foes.  Jeremiah  then  said  that,  if  he  would  surrender, 
his  life  and  the  city  would  be  spared  ;  if  not,  it  would  be  burned 
and  he  would  not  escape. 

19-23.  Zedekiah  replied  that  he  feared  the  Chaldeans  would 
hand  him  over  to  the  Jewish  deserters.  Jeremiah  replied  that 
they  would  not  do  so,  and  besought  him  to  obey,  so  it  would  be 
well  with  him.  But  if  he  refuse,  then  the  women  of  the  palace 
shall  sing  the  dirge  over  him  when  they  are  captured.  His  friends 
have  led  him  astray,  and  abandon  him  now  that  his  feet  have  sunk 
in  the  mire.  His  wives  and  children  and  he  himself  will  be  cap- 
tured, and  the  city  will  be  burned. 

24-28*.  The  king  enjoined  secrecy  on  the  prophet,  assuring 
him  that  he  should  not  die.  He  also  told  him  that  if  the  princes 
asked  what  he  and  the  king  had  said,  he  was  to  reply  that  he  had 
petitioned  not  to  be  sent  back  to  Jonathan's  house,  to  die  there. 
So  when  the  princes  asked  him,  he  replied  as  the  king  commanded, 
and  thus  the  purport  of  the  interview  remained  unknown.  So  he 
stayed  in  the  court  of  the  guard. 

zzxvlii.  14.  the  third  entry.  This  was  no  doubt  well  known 
to  Baruch.  but  it  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  nor  do  we  ever 
read  of  a  first  or  second  entry.     Giesebrecht  with  a  slight  emend- 


172  JEREMIAH  38.  15-18.     B 

house  of  the  Lord  :  and  the  king  said  unto  Jeremiah, 

^5  I  will  ask  thee  a  thing;  hide  nothing  from  me.     Then 

Jeremiah  said  unto  Zedekiah,  If  I  declare  it  unto  thee, 

wilt  thou  not  surely  put  me  to  death  ?  and  if  I  give  thee 

16  counsel,  thou  wilt  not  hearken  unto  me.  So  Zedekiah  the 
king  sware  secretly  unto  Jeremiah,  saying,  As  the  Lord 
liveth,  that  made  us  this  soul,  I  will  not  put  thee  to  death, 
neither  will  I  give  thee  into  the  hand  of  these  men 

17  that  seek  thy  life.  Then  said  Jeremiah  unto  Zedekiah, 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel : 
If  thou  wilt  go  forth  unto  the  king  of  Babylon's  princes, 
then  thy  soul  shall  live,  and  this  city  shall  not  be  burned 

18  with  fire ;  and  thou  shalt  live,  and  thine  house :  but  if 

ation  {m^bo'  hashshaltshim  for  rAdbo'  hashsh^lisht)  gets  the  sense 
<the  body-guard's  entry,'  which  is  accepted  by  Duhm.  P.  Haupt, 
on  the  other  hand,  defends  the  present  text ;  he  supposes  that  the 
main  entrance  on  the  east  was  the  first  entrance,  that  on  the  north 
was  the  second,  that  on  the  south  was  the  third,  leading  from  the 
Temple  to  the  palace.  In  the  absence  of  definite  information 
decision  between  these  views  is  impossible.  Clearly  it  was  a  place 
convenient  for  the  king  to  reach  without  observation,  and  suitable 
for  a  secret  meeting.  The  king  was  like  a  patient  who  begs  his 
doctor  to  tell  him  the  whole  truth,  but  clings  desperately  to  the 
hope  of  favourable  news  and  is  unprepared  with  any  courage  for 
the  worst. 

15.  The  prophet  has  rightly  gauged  the  king's  character.  If 
the  truth  he  has  demanded  should  prove  unwelcome,  his  personal 
resentment  will  be  provoked,  and  he  will  abandon  him  to  his 
enemies.  So  before  Jeremiah  speaks  he  expresses  his  fear  to. the 
king. 

16.  Zedekiah  swears  by  Yahweh  the'^iver  of  life  (an  uncom- 
mon oath),  both  to  the  prophet  and  himself,  that  he  will  not  cause 
Jeremiah's  life  to  be  taken  :  may  he  lose  his  own  if  he  is  false  to 
his  oath ! 

secretly :   is  omitted   by   the  LXX,   probably  correctly  ;    it 
should  have  come  at  an  earlier  point. 

17.  Jeremiah  gives  the  king  the  advice  he  had  given  to  his 
subjects.  The  only  hope  for  himself  and  the  city  lies  in  surren- 
der. He  speaks  of  '  the  king  of  Babylon's  princes '  because 
Nebuchadnezzar  himself  was  not  in  command  at  Jerusalem.  See 
xxxix.  3,  5. 


JEREMIAH   38.  19-21.     B  173 

thou  wilt  not  go  forth  to  the  king  of  Babylon's  princes, 
then  shall  this  city  be  given  into  the  hand  of  the  Chal- 
deans, and  they  shall  burn  it  with  fire,  and  thou  shall 
not  escape  out  of  their  hand.  And  Zedekiah  the  king  19 
said  unto  Jeremiah,  I  am  afraid  of  the  Jews  that  are 
fallen  away  to  the  Chaldeans,  lest  they  deliver  me  into 
their  hand,  and  they  mock  me.  But  Jeremiah  said,  They  20 
shall  not  deliver  thee.  Obey,  I  beseech  thee,  the  voice 
of  the  Lord,  in  that  which  I  speak  unto  thee  :  so  it  shall 
be  well  with  thee,  and  thy  soul  shall  live.     But  if  thou  21 

19.  Zedekiah  shrinks  from  surrender,  lest  the  Chaldeans  deliver 
him  over  to  the  Jews  who  had  deserted  and  they  mishandle  him. 
It  was  not  an  imaginary  terror.  Party  spirit  no  doubt  ran  high ; 
those  who  were  opposed  to  the  alliance  with  Egypt  and  revolt 
from  Babylon  would  bitterly  resent  the  ruinous  policy  for  which 
the  king  had  been  responsible,  and  which  its  real  authors  had 
carried  through  with  such  high-handed  violence  towards  its  oppo- 
nents. See  note  on  xxxvii.  13.  It  was  not  taunts  and  insults 
merely  that  Zedekiah  feared,  but  physical  ill-treatment. 

21,  22.  If,  however,  the  king  refuses  to  accept  these  assur- 
ances, then  this  is  the  scene  which  Yahweh  has  shown  the  prophet. 
He  has  seen  the  palace  women  led  out  to  the  princes  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, and  singing  a  lamentation  as  they  went.  The  dirge 
is  in  Qina  rhythm,  as  Budde  points  out,  and  Jeremiah  probably 
pronounced  it  so  as  to  bring  out  its  real  character.  But  it  is 
questionable  if  Budde  is  right  in  supposing  that  the  lines  are 
a  well-known  dirge,  in  use  among  the  wailing  women.  The 
parallel  in  Obad.  7  does  not  prove  this,  for  that  passage  is  later 
and  probabli'  depends  on  ours.  As  we  read  22  we  cannot  help 
being  struck  with  the  fact  that  the  metaphor  answers  to  the 
experience  through  which  the  prophet  had  passed.  True,  the 
figure  is  drawn  rather  from  the  fate  of  a  traveller,  who  against  his 
better  judgement  has  taken  a  path  which  has  led  him  into  a  swamp. 
But  the  words  '  thy  feet  are  sunk  in  the  mire  '  recall  so  vividly  the 
statement  in  6,  that  they  were  probably  suggested  by  the  experience 
itself.  And,  if  so,  the  vision  seems  to  have  flashed  on  the  prophet 
even  as  he  was  speaking,  and  the  verses  to  have  been  improvised. 
With  his  clairvoyant  faculty  he  sees  the  sorrowful  procession,  the 
burden  of  their  song  he  hears  as  a  clairaudient,  but  only  its 
general  tenor;  the  form  in  which  he  reproduces  it  is  moulded  by 
his  own  experience.  He  had  been  cast  by  his  enemies  into  the 
cistern,  and  his  feet  had  sunk  in  the  mire  :  Zedekiah  had  been  mis- 


174  JEREMIAH  38.  22-25.     B 

refuse  to  go  forth,  this  is  the  word  that  the  Lord  hath 
2  2  shewed  me :  Behold,  all  the  women  that  are  left  in  the 
king  of  Judah's  house  shall  be  brought  forth  to  the  king 
of  Babylon's  princes,  and  those  women  shall  say,  ^-Thy 
familiar  friends  have  ^set  thee  on,  and  have  prevailed 
over  thee :  now  that  thy  feet  are  sunk  in  the  mire,  they 
33  are  turned  away  back.  And  they  shall  bring  out  all  thy 
wives  and  thy  children  to  the  Chaldeans :  and  thou  shalt 
not  escape  out  of  their  hand,  but  shalt  be  taken  by  the 
hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon:  and  cthou  shalt  cause  this 

24  city  to  be  burned  with  fire.     Then  said  Zedekiah  unto 
Jeremiah,  Let  no  man  know  of  these  words,  and  thou 

25  shalt  not  die.     But  if  the  princes  hear  that  I  have  talked 

*  Heb.  The  men  of  thy  peace.  ^  Or,  deceived  thee 

**  Heb.  thou  shalt  burn  ^c. 

led  by  his  friends,  but  when  his  feet  sank  in  the  mire,  no  one  drew 
him  out.  It  may  be  added  that  Duhm,  while  recognizing  the 
authenticity  of  the  saying,  thinks  that  it  may  have  been  spoken 
with  reference  to  Judah,  betrayed  by  her  allies,  especially  Egypt. 
But  while  it  would  suit  this  admirably,  there  is  no  reason  to 
question  the  representation  in  the  text. 

the  women  that  are  left :  that  is,  from  the  previous  capture 
of  the  city  in  597  b.  c.  and  the  troubles  of  the  present  siege. 

now  that .  .  .  they  .  .  .  back.  Probably  we  should  point  differ- 
ently'and  render,  with  the  LXX,  '  they  have  made  thy  feet  to  sink 
.  .  .  back.'  His  friends  have  led  him  into  trouble,  and  now  leave 
him  to  his  fate. 

23.  This  verse  is  obviously  no  part  of  the  vision,  it  adds  very 
little  to  what  has  been  already  said,  and  the  impression  of  the 
preceding  verses  is  weakened  by  it.  Duhm  may  be  right  in 
regarding  it  as  an  insertion.  At  the  close  we  should  read  *  and 
this  city  shall  be  burned  with  fire,'  with  LXX  and  other  Versions 
and  a  few  Hebrew  MSS. 

24.  Zedekiah  commands  secrecy  ,  if  this  is  observed  he  will  not 
die.  He  seems  to  mean  that  if  the  prophet  betrays  what  has 
passed  the  princes  will  kill  him,  since  the  king  is  powerless  to 
protect  him. 

25.  In  spite  of  his  precautions  he  fears  that  his  interview  with 
the  prophet  will  not  have  gone  unobserved,  and  instructs  him  how 
he  is  to  answer  the  inevitable  question  of  the  princes. 


JEREMIAH  38.  26—39.  i.     BS  175 

with  thee,  and  they  come  unto  thee,  and  say  unto  thee, 
Declare  unto  us  now  what  thou  hast  said  unto  the  king  ; 
hide  it  not  from  us,  and  we  will  not  put  thee  to  death  : 
also  what  the  king  said  unto  thee  :  then  thou  shalt  say  26 
unto  them,  I  "  presented  my  supplication  before  the  king, 
that  he  would  not  cause  me  to  return  to  Jonathan's  house, 
to  die  there.     Then  came  all  the  princes  unto  Jeremiah,  27 
and  asked  him  :  and  he  told  them  according  to  all  these 
words  that  the  king  had  commanded.      So  they  left  off 
speaking  with  him ;  for  the  matter  was  not  ^  perceived. 
So  Jeremiah  abode  in  the  court  of  the  guard  until  the  28 
day  that  Jerusalem  was  taken. 
And  it  came  to  pass  when  Jerusalem  was  taken,  [S]  « (in  39 

*  Heb.  caused  to  fall.  ^  Or,  reported 

•^  See  ch.  Hi.  4,  &c.,  2  Kings  xxv.  1-12. 

hide  it  .  .  .  death:  a  veiled  threat ;  if  you  refuse  to  disclose 
it  we  shall  kill  you. 

26.  On  this  see  the  Introduction  to  this  section  (p.  171),  where 
it  is  pointed  out  that  Jeremiah  probably  had  made  this  request  to 
the  king  during  the  interview. 

27.  It  fell  out  as  the  king  had  anticipated,  and  Jeremiah 
answered  as  he  had  been  bidden.  He  probably  told  the  truth,  but 
not  the  whole  truth,  and  he  made  a  false  impression  on  the  princes. 
Even  to-day  exponents  of  ethics  dispute  how  far  such  conduct  is 
legitimate.  At  that  time  moral  standards  were  very  different  from 
our  own.  And  the  consequences  of  a  disclosure  would  have  been 
serious,  not  for  the  prophet  alone  but  for  the  king,  who  would  have 
felt  that  his  confidences  had  been  betrayed.  Duhm  has  a  pene- 
trating discussion  of  the  question. 

xxxviii.  28^ — xxxix.  14.     The  Capture  of  Jerusalem  and 

Jeremiah's  Fortunes. 
This  section  presents  some  perplexing  phenomena.  We  have 
a  narrative  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  which  goes  over  a  good 
deal  of  the  ground  covered  by  lii.  In  this  the  main  subject  is  the 
fate  of  Zedekiah  and  the  people  rather  than  of  Jeremiah.  Further 
4-13  isomitted  in  the  LXX.  Chap,  xxxix.  1,2  is  inserted  in  the 
middle  of  a  sentence  between  xxxviii.  28*^  and  xxxix.  3.  These 
two  verses  are  probably  an  insertion.  They  take  us  back  in  i  to 
a  point  in  the  history  which  we  have  left  far  behind,  and  they  are 


176  JEREMIAH  39.  i.     S 

the  ninth  year  of  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah,  in  the  tenth 


an  abridgement  of  Hi.  4-7.  When  they  are  removed  xxxviii.  28** 
and  xxxix.  3  form  a  single  well-connected  sentence.  The  question 
as  to  4-13  is  more  diflficult.  This  falls  into  two  main  divisions, 
4-10  and  11-13,  the  latter  of  which  is  concerned  with  the  lot  of 
Jeremiah.  The  former  is  very  generally  regarded  as  an  interpo- 
lation on  the  following  grounds.  It  is  absent  in  the  LXX,  and  is 
an  abridgement  of  Hi.  7-16.  It  does  not  connect  well  with  3,  for 
obviously  Zedekiah  did  not  wait  till  he  saw  that  the  Babylonian 
princes  had  taken  their  seat  (4),  but  took  to  flight  as  soon  as  he 
knew  that  a  breach  had  been  made  in  the  walls  (Hi.  7).  Nor  can 
one  explain  why  the  princes  mentioned  in  3  are  left  out  of  account 
in  what  follows.  11-13  is  more  relevant  to  the  author's  purpose, 
since  it  is  concerned  with  Jeremiah,  and  some  who  regard  4-10 
as  an  interpolation  take  another  view  of  11-13.  Still  there  are 
grave  reasons  against  accepting  its  authenticity.  It  is  possible  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  personally  interested  himself  in  the  prophet, 
but  it  is  hardly  likely.  Verse  1 1  does  not  connect  well  with  3,  since 
Nebuzaradan  is  not  enumerated  among  the  princes  in  3,  and 
according  to  lii.  12  did  not  reach  Jerusalem  till  a  month  later.  It 
is  also  absent  in  the  LXX.  When  i,  2,  4-13  have  been  eliminated, 
we  have  a  narrative  to  which  no  serious  objection  can  be  taken  in 
xxxviii.  21^,  xxxix.  3,  14,  which  relates  what  the  reader  of  the 
memoir  would  be  anxious  to  learn,  how  Jeremiah  fared  after  the 
capture  of  the  city.  Schmidt,  it  is  true,  strikes  out  the  whole  as 
'  manifestly  unhistorical '  {Enc.  Bib.  2388).  A  clever  attempt  to 
secure  more  of  4-13  for  the  memoirs  may  be  seen  in  Rothstein's 
introduction  to  the  section  in  Kautzsch. 

xxxviii.  28^-xxxix.  3.  When  Jerusalem  was  captured  (Nebu- 
chadnezzar came  against  it  in  the  tenth  month  of  Zedekiah's  ninth 
year,  and  a  breach  was  made  in  the  walls  in  the  fourth  month  of 
his  eleventh  year),  the  princes  of  Nebuchadnezzar  sat  in  the 
middle  gate. 

4-10.  When  Zedekiah  and  his  warriors  saw  them,  they  fled  by 
night  by  way  of  the  Arabah,  but  he  was  overtaken  by  the 
Chaldeans  in  the  plains  of  Jericho  and  taken  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
at  Riblah,  who  slew  his  sons  and  all  the  nobles  of  Judah,  blinded 
Zedekiah  and  bound  him  in  fetters.  The  Chaldeans  burned  the 
palace  and  the  city,  and  broke  down  the  walls.  Then  Nebuzar- 
adan carried  the  rest  of  the  people,  including  the  deserters,  to 
Babylon,  but  left  the  poor  who  had  nothing  and  gave  them  lands. 

11-14.  Nebuchadnezzar  had  charged  Nebuzaradan  to  take  care 
of  Jeremiah,  so  he  and  the  princes  sent  and  fetched  him  from  the 
court  of  the  guard,  and  entrusted  him  to  Gedaliah,  who  set  him  at 
Jiberty. 


JEREMIAH  30.  2-5.     SBS  177 

month,  came  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon  and  all  his 
army  against  Jerusalem,  and  besieged  it ;  in  the  eleventh  2 
year  of  Zedekiah,  in  the  fourth  month,  the  ninth  day  of 
the  month,  a  breach  was  made  in  the  city  :)  [B]  that  all  3 
the  princes  of  the  king  of  Babylon  came  in,  and  sat  in  the 
middle  gate,  even  Nergal-sharezer,  Samgar-nebo,  Sarse- 
chim,  ^  Rab-saris,  Nergal-sharezer,  ^  Rab-mag,  with  all  the 
rest  of  the  princes  of  the  king  of  Babylon.      [S]  And  it  4 
came  to  pass  that  when  Zedekiah  the  king  of  Judah  and 
all  the  men  of  war  saw  them,  then  they  fled,  and  went 
forth  out  of  the  city  by  night,  by  the  way  of  the  king's 
garden,  by  the  gate  betwixt  the  two  walls  :  and  he  went 
out  the  way  of  the  Arabah.     But  the  army  of  the  Chal-  5 
deans  pursued  after  them,  and  overtook  Zedekiah  in  the 
plains  of  Jericho  :  and  when  they  had  taken  him,  they 
brought  him  up  to  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon  to 
*  Titles  of  officers. 

zzxiz.  1,  2:  taken  from  Hi.  4-7. 

3.  When  the  city  was  captured,  the  Babylonian  princes  sat  in 
the  middle  gate,  the  situation  of  which  is  unknown,  to  administer 
affairs,  and  then  sent  to  release  Jeremiah  (14).  The  names  create 
difficulties.  TJiere  are  four  names,  the  third  and  fourth  of  which 
have  official  designations  appended.  Of  these  four  names  the  first 
and  fourth  are  identical  and  probably  duplicates.  In  13  only  two 
princes  (apart  from  Nebuzaradan)  are  mentioned,  and  Nebushazban 
is  there  said  to  be  the  Rab-saris,  the  name  given  to  the  holder  of 
the  office  in  3.  Sarsechim  is  inexplicable.  Samgar  is  perhaps, 
as  Giesebrecht  suggests,  a  corruption  for  Sar-mag=  Rab-mag,  and 
is  to  be  omitted  as  a  doublet,  while  -nebo  Sarsechim  is  probably 
a  corrupt  form  of  Nebushazban  (13).  Accordingly  two  princes 
are  mentioned  whose  names  and  titles  are  correctly  given  in  13. 
Rab-saris  may  mean  '  chief  of  the  eunuchs,'  but  more  probably 
'chief  of  the  heads'  {rabii-sa-reli) ,  i.e.  'chief  of  the  principal  men  ;' 
Rab-mag  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  '  chief  of  the  sooth- 
sayers,' but  may  mean  '  chief  of  princes.' 

4.  The  extract  from  lii.  4-16  begins  here  and  continues  to 
10.  See  Introduction  to  this  section.  For  the  exegesis  see 
Dr.  Skinner's  Commentary  on  Kings;  as  explained  in  the  Intro- 
duction to  the  notes  on  Jer.  lii. 

II  N 


lyS  JEREMIAH  39.  6-14.     SB 

Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath,  and  he  ^  gave  judgement 

6  upon  him.  Then  the  king  of  Babylon  slew  the  sons  of 
Zedekiah  in  Riblah  before  his  eyes  :  also  the  king  of 

7  Babylon  slew  all  the  nobles  of  Judah.  Moreover  he  put 
out  Zedekiah's  eyes,  and  bound  him  in  fetters,  to  carry 

8  him  to  Babylon.  And  the  Chaldeans  burned  the  king's 
house,  and  the  houses  of  the  people,  with  fire,  and  brake 

9  down  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Then  Nebuzaradan  the 
'^  captain  of  the  guard  carried  away  captive  into  Babylon 
the  residue  of  the  people  that  remained  in  the  city,  the 
deserters  also,  that  fell  away  to  him,  and  the  residue  of  the 

10  people  that  remained.  But  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of 
the  guard  left  of  the  poor  of  the  people,  which  had  nothing, 
in  the  land  of  Judah,  and  gave  them  vineyards  and  fields 

1 1  at  the  same  time.  Now  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon 
gave  charge  concerning  Jeremiah  to  Nebuzaradan  the 

12  captain  of  the  guard,  saying,  Take  him,  and  look  well  to 
him,  and  do  him  no  harm ;  but  do  unto  him  even  as  he 

13  shall  say  unto  thee.  So  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the 
guard  sent,  and  Nebushazban,  Rab-saris,  and  Nergal- 
sharezer,  Rab-mag,  and  all  the  chief  officers  of  the  king  of 

14  Babylon ;  [b]  they  sent,  and  took  Jeremiah  out  of  the 

^  Heb.  spake  judgements  with  him.     See  ch.  xii.  i. 
^  See  Gen.  xxxvii.  36. 

11,  12.  If  the  account  here  is  historical,  we  must  suppose  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  learned  of  Jeremiah's  efforts  to  maintain 
peace,  his  advice  to  the  Jews  to  surrender,  and  his  unshaken  con- 
fidence in  the  victory  of  Babylon.  This  is  by  no  means  impossible, 
but  its  probability  is  dubious. 

13.  See  on  3  ;  we  have  seen  that  this  verse  gives  a  more  correct 
account  of  the  officials  and  their  titles. 

14.  This  verse  connects  directly  with  3.  The  two  princes  there 
mentioned,  in  the  corrected  text,  had  Jeremiah  brought  from  the 
court  of  the  guard  and  handed  him  over  to  Gedahah,  whose  father 
Ahikam  had  early  in  Jehoiakim's  reign  protected  the  prophet 
(xxvi.  24).     Presumably  he  had  taken  Jeremiah's  advice  and  sur- 


JEREMIAH  39.  15,  16.     B  179 

court  of  the  guard,  and  couimittcd  hiin  unto  Gcdaliah 
the  son  of  Ahikam,  the  son  of  Shaphan,  that  he  should 
carry  him  home :  so  he  dwelt  among  the  people. 

Now  the  word  of  the   Lord  came  unto   Jeremiah,  15 
while  he  was  shut  up  in  the  court  of  the  guard,  saying, 
Go,  and  speak,  to  Ebed-melech  the  Ethiopian,  saying,  16 
Thus   saith   the    Lord   of  hosts,    the   God    of  Israel : 
Behold,  I  will  bring  my  words  upon  this  city  for  evil, 

rendered  to  the  Chaldeans,  and  from  him  they  had  probably  learnt 
about  the  prophet's  attitude. 

carry  him  home :  i.e.  probably  to  his  own  home,  but  the 
Hebrew  is  unusual  and  ambiguous.  The  last  clause  seems  to  mean 
that  he  could  move  freely  among  the  people,  he  was  a  prisoner 
no  longer. 

xxxix.  15-18.  A  Promise  of  Safkty  to  Ebed-melech. 
The  authenticity  of  this  section  is  denied  not  only  by  Schmidt, 
who  regards  the  story  of  the  rescue  itself  as  unhistorical,  but  also 
by  Duhm,  who  is  followed  by  Erbt  and  Cornill.  Duhm's  judgement 
is  influenced  to  some  extent  by  his  view  that  the  women  of  the 
harem  had  imagined  that  the  princes  were  getting  rid  of  Jeremiah 
so  as  to  have  one  less  mouth  to  feed,  and  that  Ebed-melech  had 
shared  this  naive  opinion,  so  had  saved  him  from  pity,  rather  than 
as  a  pious  person  who  had  trusted  in  God  (18).  This  ingenious 
romance  rests  on  no  solid  foundation,  and  Cornill  relies  simply  on 
its  inappropriate  position  in  the  book,  and  its  insignificant  content. 
It  is  of  course,  as  Giesebrecht  says,  impossible  to  prove  the 
authenticity,  but  there  is  no  adequate  reason  for  denying  it. 
Opposite  inferences  might  be  drawn  from  the  parallelism  with 
the  address  to  Baruch  (xlv).  We  should,  it  is  true, have  expected 
it  to  follow  xxxviii.  13  or  xxxviii.  28  ^  But  the  editor  is  responsible 
for  the  arrangement,  and  he  may  have  wished  to  carry  the  story 
on  without  interruption  to  the  deliverance  of  Jeremiah  after  the 
siege.     Probably  it  is  chronologically  later  than  xxxviii.  27. 

xxxix.  15-18.  While  he  was  in  the  court  of  the  guard,  Yahweh 
bade  Jeremiah  tell  Ebed-melech  that  He  was  bringing  evil  upon 
the  city,  but  would  deliver  him,  and  he  should  not  be  delivered 
into  the  power  of  those  whom  he  feared.  His  life  should  be 
spared,  because  he  trusted  in  God. 

xxxix.  16.  and  they  .  .  .  day.  The  LXX  omits  the  words, 
which  l)avc  probably  arisen  through  dittography  of  the  opening 
words  of  17. 

N  2 


i8o  JEREMIAH  39.  17— 40.  i.     BR 

and  not  for  good  ;   and  they  ^  shall  be  accomplished 

1 7  before  thee  in  that  day.  But  I  will  deliver  thee  in  that 
day,  saith  the  Lord  :  and  thou  shalt  not  be  given  into 

18  the  hand  of  the  men  of  whom  thou  art  afraid.  For 
I  will  surely  save  thee,  and  thou  shalt  not  fall  by  the 
sword,  but  thy  life  shall  be  for  a  prey  unto  thee  :  because 
thou  hast  put  thy  trust  in  me,  saith  the  Lord. 

40       [R]  The  word  which  came  to  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord, 
after  that  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the  guard  had  let 

^  Or,  shall  be  before  thee 


17.  the   men    .  .  .  afraid:    perhaps   the    Babylonians    (as    18 

suggests),  but  the  phrase  itself  suits  better  the  princes,  whose 
vengeance  for  his  interference  he  might  well  dread. 

18.  thy  life  .' .  .  prey :  see  note  on  xxi.  9,  and  cf.  the  promise 
to  Baruch  (xlv.  5). 

xl.  1-6.  Jeremiah,  after  his  Release  by  Nebuzaradan, 
Prefers  to  Remain  in  Palestine. 

This  passage,  apart  from  6,  is  regarded  by  Duhm,  Erbt,  and 
Cornill  as  a  legend,  connected  with  xxxiv.  11,  12.  But  it  was  by 
no  means  impossible  for  the  situation  described  to  arise.  When 
Nebuzaradan,  a  month  after  the  capture  of  the  city,  arrived  at  Jeru- 
salem, Gedaliah  seems  to  have  gone  to  Mizpah.  Jeremiah  remained 
in  the  city,  and  was  put  in  fetters  with  the  other  citizens.  By  the 
time  the  prisoners  reached  Ramah,  Gedaliah  would  have  heard 
of  Jeremiah's  case  and  intervened.  The  Babylonian  officer  may 
have  been  quite  ignorant  about  Jeremiah  ;  or  he  may  have  known  of 
him  either  directly  from  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  we  are  told  in  xxxix. 
11-13,  or  from  the  deserters.  In  any  case  it  needed  but  an  explana- 
tion to  secure  his  liberty.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  think  that  the 
address  of  Nebuzaradan  to  Jeremiah  is  an  authentic  report  so  far 
as  2^,  3  with  their  familiar  phraseology  are  concerned. 

xl.  1-6.  At  Ramah  Nebuzaradan  took  Jeremiah,  who  was  in 
chains  with  the  prisoners,  and  said  that  Yahweh  had  punished 
the  people  for  their  sins.  He  would  release  him  and  permit  him 
his  choice  to  go  to  Babylon  or  to  remain  with  Gedaliah.  So 
Jeremiah  went  to  Gedaliah  at  Mizpah. 

xl.  1.  The  opening  v^ords  are  due  to  the  editor  and  are  entirely 
inappropriate,  since  no  oracle  follows  (see  note  on  xxxi,  15-22). 


JEREMIAH   40.  2-5.     RBSB  i8i 

him  go  from  R.imah,  [B]  when  he  had  taken  him  being 
bound  in  chains  among  all  the  captives  of  Jerusalem  and 
Judah,  which  were  carried  away  captive  unto  Babylon. 
And  the  captain  of  the  guard  took  Jeremiah,  and  said  2 
unto  him,  [s]  The  Lord  thy  God  pronounced  this  evil 
upon  this  place  :  and  the  Lord  hath  brought  it,  and  :. 
done  according  as  he  spake ;  because  ye  have  sinned 
against  the  Lord,  and  have  not  obeyed  his  voice,  there- 
fore this  thing  is  come  upon  you.  [b]  And  now,  behold,  4 
I  loose  thee  this  day  from  the  chains  which  are  upon 
thine  hand.  If  it  seem  good  unto  thee  to  come  with 
me  into  Babylon,  come,  and  I  will  look  well  unto  thee ; 
but  if  it  seem  ill  unto  thee  to  come  with  me  into  Babylon, 
forbear :  behold,  all  the  land  is  before  thee  ;  whither 
it  seemeth  good  and  ^  convenient  unto  thee  to  go,  thither 
go.    Now  while  he  was  not  yet  gone  back.  Go  back  then,  5 

^  Or,  right 

Bamah  :  see  note  on  xxxi.  15.  The  captives  probably  halted 
here  for  the  final  arrangements  to  be  made  for  their  journey  to 
Babylon. 

2,  3.  Here  the  heathen  governor  instructs  Jeremiah  in  the 
latter's  own  theology. 

4.  Nebuzaradan  sets  him  free  from  the  manacles  which  fettered 
his  hands,  and  gives  him  his  choice  of  accompanying  him  to  Babj'- 
lon,  where  he  will  be  treated  with  honour,  or  remaining  in  his  own 
country. 

5.  Wow  while  he  was  not  yet  gone  back.  The  Hebrew  is 
strange,  and  many  attempts  to  explain  it  have  been  ofTercd.  The 
words  are  absent  in  the  LXX  ;  they  seem  to  be  a  gloss,  which 
is  itself  corrupt.  The  following  words  then  connect  with  4  and 
develop  the  second  alternative  offered  to  the  prophet.  If  he 
decides  to  remain  in  Palestine,  then  let  him  go  to  Gedaliah  and 
share  in  the  task  of  building  up  the  community  under  the  new 
conditions.  But  that  the  prophet  may  feel  that  he  has  unrestricted 
liberty  of  action,  the  captain  adds  that  if  neither  of  the  suggestions 
is  to  his  mind,  let  him  go  wherever  he  wishes.  We  are  not  told 
what  Jeremiah  said  in  reply,  but  no  doubt  he  signified  his  inten- 
tion to  remain.  So  the  captain  gave  him  'victuals,'  i.e.,  as  the 
word  moans,  food  for  his  journey,  and  a  present,  i.e.  to  show  him 


i82  JEREMIAH  40.  6,  7.     B 

said  he,  to  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam,  the  son  of 
Shaphan,  whom  the  king  of  Babylon  hath  made  governor 
over  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  dwell  with  him  among  the 
people  :  or  go  wheresoever  it  seemeth  ^  convenient  unto 
thee   to   go.      So  the   captain  of  the  guard  gave  him 

6  ^^  victuals  and  a  present,  and  let  him  go.  Then  went 
Jeremiah  unto  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam  to  Mizpah, 
and  dwelt  with  him  among  the  people  that  were  left  in 
the  land. 

7  c  Now  when  all  the  captains  of  the  forces  which  were 
*  Or,  right        ^  Or,  an  allowance        ^  See  2  Kings  xxv.  23,  24. 

honour  and  provide  for  his  necessities  in  the  near  future.  Perhaps 
'  victuals  and '  should  be  omitted,  'as  by  LXX :  the  journey  was 
short. 

6.  The  choice  of  Jeremiah  was  probably  determined  by  the 
thought  that  his  place  was  rather  with  Gedaliah  and  the  remnant 
than  with  the  exiles.  He  looked  forward  to  a  complete  restoration 
of  the  nation  ;  and  since  its  future  home  was  to  be  in  Palestine, 
he  felt  that  Providence  called  him  to  remain  in  the  land  where  he 
had  so  long  laboured  and  build  up  the  nucleus  of  the  new  Israel, 
and  not  at  his  age  to  begin  a  new  life  in  Babylon.  A  sense  of 
personal  loyalty  to  Gedaliah,  whom  he  might  guide  in  his  task, 
ma}''  also  have  moved  him. 

Mizpah:  a  city  of  Benjamin,  lying  from  four  to  five  miles 
north-west  of  Jerusalem,  on  the  hill  now  called  Neby  Samwil. 

xl.  7 — xli.  3.  Gedaliah  is  Murdered  by  Ishmael. 
Schmidt  saj's  'xl.  7 — xli.  18  must  have  been  taken  from  another 
source  than  the  biography.  The  lifelikeness  of  the  story  is  much 
praised,  and  it  is  generally  used  as  an  authentic  account  by 
modern  historians.  Literary  critics  are  still  apt  to  be  deceived 
by  vividness  of  description,  local  colour,  names  and  dates,  and 
charmed  into  forgetfulness  of  the  most  glaring  inconsistencies  and 
historical  impossibilities.  .Such  inconsistencies  and  impossibilities 
are  not  wanting  in  this  story.  A  confused  memory  of  the  first 
Chaldean  governor  and  of  an  abortive  attempt  by  a  side  branch  of 
the  Davidic  family  to  overthrow  the  new  government,  and  local 
legends  clustering  about  the  cistern  of  Asa  and  the  pool  of  Gibeon, 
may  lie  at  its  foundation  ;  but  in  its  present  form  it  cannot  well 
be  earlier  than  the  second  century '  {Enc.  Bib.  2386).  This 
drastic  judgement  is  not  shared  by  others,  but  while  attributing 
the  narrative  to  Baruch  all  are  agreed  that  it  presents  verj'  diffi- 


JEREMIAH  40.  7.     B  183 

in  the  fields,  even  they  and  their  men,  heard  that  the 


cult  problems.  A  plausible  explanation  can  be  offered  for  Ishmael's 
murder  of  Gedaliah.  It  is  questionable  whether  Baalis  instigated  him, 
in  spite  of  Johanan's  statement  to  that  effect.  Ishmael  belonged 
to  the  house  of  David,  and  may  have  resented  the  appointment  of 
Gedaliah,  who  did  not  belong  to  the  royal  house.  But  he  seems 
to  have  been  a  strong  adherent  of  the  anti-Babylonian  party,  and 
would  thus  be  politically  opposed  to  Gedaliah  and  to  the  settle- 
ment of  the  country  under  Chaldean  rule.  It  is  true  that  his 
action  was  not  only  inexcusable  but  irrational.  He  could  not  hope 
to  help  his  people's  cause  by  a  deed  which  was  likely  to  exasperate 
the  Babylonians.  But  it  is  not  without  other  examples  that 
a  defeated  party  should  express  its  patriotism  by  blind  violence 
reacting  most  injuriously  on  its  own  cause.  Much  more  inex- 
plicable is  the  career  of  violence  on  which  he  entered  after  he  had 
murdered  Gedaliah.  The  sorrow  of  the  pilgrims  over  the  downfall 
of  Jerusalem  should  have  appealed  to  his  sympathies,  unless  it 
seemed  a  reflection  on  the  policy  of  the  war-party  which  had 
involved  such  ruin.  The  sparing  of  the  ten  men  who  offered  to 
disclose  the  stores  they  had  hidden,  might  be  due  to  desire  for 
plunder,  or  to  the  anticipation  that  if  he  could  initiate  a  guerilla 
warfare  against  the  Chaldeans,  such  stores  would  be  useful.  The 
killing  of  the  other  seventy  admits  of  no  rational  explanation  ;  one 
is  almost  tempted  to  think  that  there  was  an  abnormal  strain  in 
Ishmael's  personality.  That  eighty  men,  though  unarmed,  should 
tamely  let  themselves  be  overpowered  by  eleven  men,  and  that 
seventy  should  be  butchered,  apparently  without  resistance,  is 
also  remarkable.  And  similarly  right  through  the  history  this 
small  company  of  bandits  has  it  all  its  own  way  till  Johanan's 
rescue-party  forces  it  to  escape  into  Ammon.  We  are  not  justi- 
fied on  account  of  these  difficulties  in  denying  the  historicity  of 
the  narrative,  but  we  must  renounce  the  attempt  at  any  rational 
explanation  of  it. 

xl.  7-T2.  When  the  captains  heard  that  Gedaliah  had  been 
made  governor,  and  that  the  Jews  who  were  left  in  Judah  were 
committed  to  his  care,  they  came  to  him  at  Mizpah.  He  ex- 
horted them  to  be  loyal  to  the  Chaldeans,  to  gather  fruits 
and  dwell  in  their  cities.  And  the  Jews  who  had  taken  refuge 
in  the  surrounding  countries  came  to  Gedaliah  and  gathered  much 
fruit. 

13-16.  Johanan  and  the  captains  warn  Gedaliah  that  Baalis  the 
king  of  Ammon  has  sent  Ishmael  to  kill  him,  but  Gedaliah  refuses 
to  believe  it.  Then  Johanan  offers  to  kill  Ishmael,  to  avoid  the 
ruin  that  would  follow  on  Gedaliah's  murder.  But  Gedaliah 
forbids  him,  treating  his  accusation  as  a  slander  on  Ishmael. 


i84  JEREMIAH  40.  8-10.     B 

king  of  Babylon  had  made  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam 
governor  in  the  land,  and  had  committed  unto  him  men, 
and  women,  and  children,  ^  and  of  the  poorest  of  the 
land,   of  them   that  were  not  carried  away  captive  to 

8  Babylon  ;  then  they  came  to  Gedaliah  to  Mizpah,  even 
Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  and  Johanan  and  Jonathan 
the  sons  of  Kareah,  and  Seraiah  the  son  of  Tanhumeth, 
and  the  sons  of  Ephai  the  Netophathite,  and  Jezaniah 

9  the  son  of  the  Maacathite,  they  and  their  men.  And 
Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam  the  son  of  Shaphan  sware 
unto  them  and  to  their  men,  saying,  Fear  not  to  serve 
the  Chaldeans :  dwell  in  the  land,  and  serve  the  king 

10  of  Babylon,  and  it  shall  be  well  with  you.     As  for  me, 
behold,   I   will   dwell  at   Mizpah,  to  stand  before  the 

*  Or,  even 

xli.  1-3.  In  the  seventh  month  Ishmael,  accompanied  by  ten 
men,  after  being  entertained  by  Gedaliah.  murders  him  and  all  the 
Jews  and  Chaldeans  that  were  with  him. 

xl.  7-9  are  repeated  in  an  abbreviated  form  in  2  Kings  xxv. 
23,  24.  The  Babylonians  had  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  scour 
the  country  and  collect  all  the  scattered  bands  of  Jews  that  had 
been  in  arms  against  them.  These  now  made  their  submission  to 
Gedaliah.  Jonathan  is  omitted  in  Kings,  but  whether  rightly  is 
uncertain.  Netophah  seems  to  have  been  a  village  on  the  east  of 
Bethlehem,  now  Beit  Nettif  (Neh.  vii.  26,  xii.  28,  i  Chron.  ii.54). 
Maacah  lay  to  the  south-east  of  Hermon. 

9.  The  LXX  and  2  Kings  xxv,  24  give  a  better  text,  '  Fear  not 
because  of  the  servants  of  the  Chaldeans,'  i.  e.  such  Babylonian 
officials  as  were  left  on  duty  in  various  parts  of  the  land. 

10.  to  stand  before.  In  xv.  19,  xxxv.  19  the  phrase  means  '  to  be 
engaged  in  the  service  of.'  If  that  is  the  meaning  here,  the  point 
is  that  Gedaliah  has  his  residence  at  Mizpah,  that  he  may  serve 
the  interests  of  such  Chaldeans  as  may  come  to  him.  The  sense 
required  is,  however,  that  he  should  serve  the  interests  of  the 
Jews  entrusted  to  his  care.  He  would,  it  is  true,  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  doing  this  as  servant  of  the  Chaldeans,  but  the  main 
point  would  thus  be  implied  rather  than  expressed.  We  should 
accordingly  interpret  as  in  xv.  i,. where  it  means  'to  intercede.' 


JEREMIAH  40.  11-14.     B  185 

Chaldeans,  which  shall  come  unto  us  :  but  ye,  gather 
ye  \v\ne  and  summer  fruits  and  oil,  and  put  them  in  your 
vessels,  and  dwell  in  your  cities  that  ye  have  taken. 
Likewise  when  all  the  Jews  that  were  in  Moab,  and  " 
among  the  children  of  Ammon,  and  in  Edom,  and  that 
were  in  all  the  countries,  heard  that  the  king  of  Babylon 
had  left  a  remnant  of  Judah,  and  that  he  had  set  over 
them  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam,  the  son  of  Shaphan; 
then  all  the  Jews  returned  out  of  all  places  whither  they  12 
were  driven,  and  came  to  the  land  of  Judah,  to  Gedaliah, 
unto  Mizpah,  and  gathered  wine  and  summer  fruits  very 
much. 

Moreover  Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah,  and  all  the  13 
captains  of  the  forces  that  were  in  the  fields,  came  to 
Gedaliah  to  Mizpah,  and  said  unto  him,  Dost  thou  know  14 
that  Baalis  the  king  of  the  children  of  Ammon  hath  sent 

g-ather  ye  wine  .  .  .  oil.  The  city  had  been  captured  in  the 
fourth  month  ;  a  month  later  Nebuzaradan  had  come  to  wind  up 
the  affairs  of  the  conquered  kingdom.  Gedaliah  was  killed 
in  the  seventh  month,  according  to  Jewish  tradition  on  the  third 
of  the  month.  That  in  so  short  a  time  it  should  have  been 
possible  to  gather  such  quantities  of  grapes,  olives,  and  summer 
fruits  as  they  appear  from  12  to  have  done,  is  a  remarkable 
testimony  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Babylonians  had  risen  above 
the  methods  of  barbarism  which  characterized  ancient  and  have 
characterized  so  much  modern  warfare.  The  fruit  trees  had  been 
spared,  and  the  fruit  would  be  just  ripe. 

ye  have  taken:  better  *  ye  will  take  ; '  up  to  the  present  they 
had  been  *  in  the  fields  '  (7\ 

13.  that  were  in  the  fields  :  probably  a  scribe's  addition  from 
7  ;  matters  had  since  altered. 

14.  Baalis  may  have  been  king  of  Ammon  when  the  five  kings 
sent  ambassadors  to  Zedekiah  to  negotiate  an  alliance  against 
Babylon  (xxvii.  3).  If  so,  he  would  have  a  grudge  against  those 
who  had  thwarted  the  project.  But  this  would  hardly  account  for 
his  instigation  of  the  assassination,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  what 
advantage  he  hoped  to  reap  I'rom  it.  Johanan  may  have  been 
mistaken.  Gedaliah's  refusal  to  believe  the  charge  confirms  the 
impression  of  his  noble  character  which  we  should  otherwise 
derive  from  the  narrative. 


i86  JEREMIAH  40.  i.-— 41.  2.     B 

Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah  to  take  thy  life  ?     But 

15  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam  believed  them  not.  Then 
Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah  spake  to  Gedaliah  in  Mizpah 
secretly,  saying,  Let  me  go,  I  pray  thee,  and  I  will  slay 
Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  and  no  man  shall  know 
it :  wherefore  should  he  take  thy  life,  that  all  the  Jews 
which  are  gathered  unto  thee  should  be  scattered,  and 

16  the  remnant  of  Judah  perish?  But  Gedaliah  the  son  of 
Ahikam  said  unto  Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah,  Thou 
shalt  not  do  this  thing :  for  thou  speakest  falsely  of 
Ishmael. 

41  fiNow  it  came  to  pass  in  the  seventh  month,  that 
Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  the  son  of  Elishama, 
of  the  seed  royal,  and  one  of  the  chief  ofiEicers  of  the 
king,  and  ten  men  with  him,  came  unto  Gedaliah  the 
son  of  Ahikam  to  Mizpah ;  and  there  they  did  eat  bread 
2  together  in  Mizpah.  Then  arose  Ishmael  the  son  of 
Nethaniah,  and  the  ten  men  that  were  with  him,  and 
smote  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam  the  son  of  Shaphan 
with  the  sword,  and  slew  him,  whom  the  king  of  Babylon 

*  See  2  Kings  xxv.  25. 


15.  Johanan  saw  clearly  the  chaos  that  would  result  from  the 
murder  of  Gedaliah,  on  whom  the  future  of  the  little  community 
depended,  and  felt  himself  justified  in  offering  to  remove  him 
secretly.  To  this  Gedaliah  could  not  assent,  for  he  would  not 
believe  evil  of  Ishmael  ;  and  even  had  he  shared  Johanan's  opinion, 
he  would  hardly  have  protected  himself  by  secret  murder.  Pro- 
bably he  would  have  taken  effective  precautions. 

xli.  1.  Cf.  2  Kings  xxv.  25. 

in  the  seventh  month.  The  Jews  kept  the  fast  for  Gedaliah 
on  the  third  of  this  month,  and  this  probably  preserves  a  correct 
tradition  of  the  date  of  the  murder. 

and  one  .  .  .  king-.  If  the  words  are  authentic  the  R.V.  is 
probably  correct  in  inserting  ^  one  of,''  since  Ishmael  was  accom- 
panied only  by  ten  men  (2),  and  chief  officers  of  the  king  in 
addition  were  certainlj'^  not  with  him.    But  the  words  are  omitted 


JEREMIAH  41.  3-5.     B  187 

liad  made  governor  over  the  land.     Ishmael  also  slew  3 
all  the  Jews  that  were  with  him,  even  with  Gedaliah,  at 
Mizpah,  and  the  Chaldeans  that  were  found  there,  even 
the  men  of  war.     And  it  came  to  pass  the  second  day  4 
after  he  had  slain  Gedaliah,  and  no  man  knew  it,  that  5 


in  LXX  and  2  Kings  xxv.  25  (which,  however,  abbreviates),  and 
should  probably  be  omitted. 

3.  even  the  men  of  war.  The  LXX  omits  these  words,  proba- 
bly rightly  ;  had  Babylonian  soldiers  been  there,  the  massacre 
would  hardly  have  been  accomplished  so  easily. 

xli.  4-18.  Ishmael,  after  further  Atrocities,  Forced  to 
Retreat  to  Ammon. 

Nothing  need  be  added  to  what  has  been  said  in  the  Introduction 
to  the  previous  section. 

xli.  4-10.  The  following  day  Ishmael  met  eighty  pilgrims,  and 
invited  them  to  come  to  Gedaliah.  When  they  came  into  the  city 
he  slew  them  and  cast  them  into  the  pit,  with  the  exception  often 
men  who  offered  to  show  him  hidden  stores  of  food.  The  pit 
which  he  filled  with  dead  bodies  was  that  made  by  Asa.  Then  he 
carried  off  all  the  rest  of  the  people  who  were  left  in  Mizpah,  to 
go  to  the  land  of  Ammon. 

ii-i8.  When  Johanan  and  the  captains  heard  of  Ishmael's 
doings  they  pursued  him  and  came  up  with  him  at  Gibeon.  The 
captives  joined  Johanan,  but  Ishmael  escaped  with  eight  men  to 
the  Ammonites.  Then  Johanan  and  the  captains  took  those  whom 
thej^  had  rescued  near  to  Bethlehem,  purposing  for  fear  of  the 
Chaldeans  to  go  to  Egypt. 

xli.  4.  the  second  day :  i.e.  probably  what  we  should  call  the 
next  day.  Ishmael  took  precautions  that  no  one  outside  of  Mizpah 
should  learn  of  the  massacre. 

5.  It  is  remarkable  that  these  pilgrims  came  from  what  was 
formerly  the  Northern  Kingdom,  where  no  doubt  many  Israelites 
remained,  but  blended  with  foreign  settlers.  The  sanctuary  to 
v/hich  thej'  were  coming  was  not,  as  some  suppose,  at  Mizpah,  for 
'  the  house  of  the  Lord'  must  refer  to  Jerusalem.  Any  purpose 
they  meant  to  serve  at  Mizpah  could  have  equally  well  been 
accomplished  at  home,  and  the  narrative  suggests  that  they  would 
not  have  entered  Mizpah  at  all  but  for  Ishmael's  invitation.  We 
are  not  to  press  the  phrase  '  the  house  of  the  Lord  '  to  mean  that 
these  pilgrims  had  not  even  heard  that  the  Temple  was  destroyed; 
their  whole  attitude  of  mourning  is  eloquent  as  to  their  knowledge 
of  this.       When   the  structure  was  destroyed  the    site  still   re- 


i88  JEREMIAH  41.  6-8.     B 

there  came  certain  from  Shechem,  from  Shiloh,  and 
from  Samaria,  even  fourscore  men,  having  their  beards 
shaven  and  their  clothes  rent,  and  having  cut  themselves, 
with  ^  oblations  and  frankincense  in  their  hand,  to  bring 

G  them  to  the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  Ishmael  the  son 
of  Nethaniah  went  forth  from  Mizpah  to  meet  them, 
weeping  all  along  as  he  went :  and  it  came  to  pass,  as 
he  met  them,  he  said  unto  them,  Come  to  Gedaliah  the 

7  son  of  Ahikam.  And  it  was  so,  when  they  came  into 
the  midst  of  the  city,  that  Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah 
slew  them,  a?2d  cast  tlmti  into  the  midst  of  the  pit,  he, 

"  and  the  men  that  were  with  him.  But  ten  men  were 
*  Or,  nteal  offerings 


mained  sacred,  and  it  is  possible  that  some  sort  of  cultus  may  have 
been  carried  on  there  during  the  exile.  The  pilgrims  were 
going  to  offer  not  an  animal  but  a  vegetable  offering  together  with 
frankincense.  For  Shiloh  the  LXX  reads  Salem,  but  though 
accepted  by  several  who  compare  Gen.  xxxiii.  i8,  the  Hebrew  is 
probably  to  be  preferred.  In  token  of  deep  mourning  for  the  fate 
of  Jerusalem  they  had  shaved  the  beard,  rent  their  clothes,  and 
gashed  themselves  (cf.  xvi.  6). 

6.  weeping"  all  along'  as  he  went.  If  the  text  is  correct 
Ishmael  weeps  in  pretended  sympathy.  But  this  theatrical  ex- 
hibition might  well  have  struck  the  pilgrims  as  protesting  too  much. 
The  LXX,  •  as  they  were  going  along  and  weeping,'  is  much  better. 
Giesebrecht's  objection  that  this  should  have  been  mentioned  in  5 
is  plausible,  but  incorrect.  For  the  description  in  5  refers  to  the 
dress  they  w^ore  and  the  signs  of  mourning  they  displayed 
throughout  their  journey  ;  the  weeping  is  not  a  continuous  action, 
but  a  short  though  passionate  outburst.  And  when  we  consider 
the  circumstances  this  clause  adds  a  most  effective  touch  to  the 
picture.  For  from  Mizpah  they  catch  sight  of  the  ruined  city,  their 
first  sight  of  its  desolation,  and  burst  into  unrestrained  wailing. 
We  are  naturally  reminded  of  Luke  xix.  41. 

7.  Having  thus  enticed  them  into  the  midst  of  the  city,  and 
probably  into  a  situation  where  they  were  in  a  trap,  Ishmael  and 
his  companions  slew  them.  The  reason  for  this  atrocity  cannot 
be  conjectured  with  any  confidence.  (See  the  Introduction  to 
the  previous  section,  p.  183.) 

8.  His    reason   for  sparing  the  ten  men  is  uncertain:   seethe 


JEREMIAH  41.  9-12.     B  189 

found  among  them  that  said  unto  Ishmael,  Slay  us  not : 
for  we  have  stores  hidden  in  the  field,  of  wheat,  and  of 
barley,  and  of  oil,  and  of  honey.  So  he  forbare,  and 
slew  them  not  among  their  brethren.  Now  the  pit  <j 
wherein  Ishmael  cast  all  the  dead  bodies  of  the  men 
whom  he  had  slain,  by  the  side  of  Gedaliah,  (the  same 
was  that  which  Asa  the  king  had  made  for  fear  of  Baasha 
king  of  Israel,)  Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah  filled  it 
with  them  that  were  slain.  Then  Ishmael  carried  away  10 
captive  all  the  residue  of  the  people  that  were  in  Mizpah, 
even  the  king's  daughters,  and  all  the  people  that  remained 
in  ^lizpah,  whom  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the  guard 
had  committed  to  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam  :  Ishmael 
the  son  of  Nethaniah  carried  them  away  captive,  and 
departed  to  go  over  to  the  children  of  Amnion. 

But  when  Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah,  and  all  the  11 
captains  of  the  forces  that  were  with  him,  heard  of  all 
the  evil  that  Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah  had  done, 
then   they  took  all  the  men,   and  went  to  fight  with  12 

Introduction.  It  is  still  quite  common  for  farmers  in  Palestine  to 
store  grain  and  other  produce  in  pits,  and  it  is  to  such  stores  that 
allusion  is  here  made.  (See  Thomson,  The  Land  and  the  Book, 
pp.  509,  510.) 

9.  The  appropriate  climax  was  reached  with  the  throwing  of 
the  dead  bodies  of  his  victims  into  the  great  cistern  with  which 
Asa  had  furnished  Mizpah  when  he  built  it  as  a  fortress  against 
Baasha  (i  Kings  xv.  22).  A  cistern  of  this  kind  was  necessary  if 
a  stronghold  situated  at  the  height  of  Mizpah  was  not  to  be  forced 
by  thirst  to  surrender.  The  cistern  was  ceremonially  defiled  and 
rendered  useless  by  Ishmael's  act. 

by  the  side  of  Gedaliah.  The  Hebrew  is  unintelligible.  The 
LXX  reads  *  was  a  great  pit ; '  the  difference  in  the  Hebrew  is 
slight,  and  the  LXX  obviously  gives  the  true  text. 

10.  the  king's  daughters :  not  necessarily  the  daughters  of 
Zedekiah,  but  the  princesses  of  the  royal  house.  They  were 
related  to  Ishmael ;  the  others  he  would  lake  as  hostages  or 
perhaps  to  sell  into  slavery.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Chaldeans 
had  left  princesses  of  the  blood  in  Palestine. 

12.  Qibeon  :  i.  e.  el-Jib,  about  a  mile  to  the  north  of  Mizpah  :  sec 


I90  JEREMIAH  41.  13-17.     B 

Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  and  found  him  by  the 

13  great  waters  that  are  in  Gibeon.  Now  it  came  to  pass 
that  when  all  the  people  which  were  with  Ishmael  saw 
Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah,  and  all  the  captains  of  the 

14  forces  that  were  with  him,  then  they  were  glad.  So  all 
the  people  that  Ishmael  had  carried  away  captive  from 
Mizpah  cast  about  and  returned,  and  went  unto  Johanan 

15  the  son  of  Kareah.  But  Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah 
escaped  from  Johanan  with  eight  men,  and  went  to  the 

16  children  of  Ammon.  Then  took  Johanan  the  son  of 
Kareah,  and  all  the  captains  of  the  forces  that  were  with 
him,  all  the  remnant  of  the  people  whom  he  had  recovered 
from  Ishmael  the  son  of  Nethaniah,  from  Mizpah,  after 
that  he  had  slain  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam,  even  the 
men  of  war,  and  the  women,  and  the  children,  and  the 

1 7  eunuchs,  whom  he  had  brought  again  from  Gibeon  :  and 


xxviii.  I.  The  '  waters '  are  apparently  to  be  identified  with  the 
pool  mentioned  in  2  Sam.  ii.  13,  the  scene  of  the  ghastly  contest 
between  twelve  soldiers  of  Joab's  army  and  twelve  of  Abner's. 

14.  Apparently  the  slender  force  of  Ishmael  could  exercise  no 
adequate  control  over  such  a  train  of  captives,  and  would  be  suffi- 
ciently concerned  on  its  own  account  to  escape  the  vengeance 
of  Johanan.  As  it  was,  not  only  did  the  captives  escape,  but 
Ishmael  lost  two  of  his  men. 

ca 
round.' 

16.  The  text  must  be  corrupt,  since  '  from  Mizpah '  is  unsuitable. 
Hitzig  has  restored  the  true  text  by  a  slight  change,  '  all  the  rem- 
nant of  the  people  whom  Ishmael  ....  had  carried  away  captive 
from  Mizpah.'  Probably  we  should  strike  out  'even  the  men  of 
war  '  as  an  incorrect  gloss  on  the  preceding  word.  There  would 
hardly  be  soldiers  in  the  company  of  captives.  Ebed-melech  may 
have  been  one  of  the  eunuchs  ;  they  would  be  in  charge  of  the 
princesses. 

17.  Geruth  Chimham  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere.  Chimham 
is  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  son  of  Barzillai  who  befriended 
David  on  his  flight  from  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xix.  37-40).  Geruth  is 
a  word  which  occurs  here  only  ;  it  is  explained  to  mean  '  khan  ' 
or  '  lodging  place '  (so  margin),  but  this  is  very  dubious,  and  we 


JEREMIAH   11.  IS— 12.  i.     B  igi 

they  departed,  and  dwelt  in  ^Geruth  Cliimham,  which  is 
by  Bethlehem,  to  go  to  enter  into  Egypt,  because  of  the  18 
Chaldeans :  for  they  were  afraid  of  them,  because  Ish- 
mael  the  son  of  Nethaniah  had  slain  Gedaliah  the  son 
of  Ahikam,  whom  the  king  of  Babylon  made  governor 
over  the  land. 

Then  all  the  captains  of  the  forces,  and  Johanan  the  42 

*  Or,  the  lodging  place  of  Chimham 


should  probably  read,  with  Aquila  and  Josephus  and  most  recent 
scholars,  Gidroth,  i.  e.  *  sheep-folds.' 

xlii.  I — xliii.  7.  AgainstGod's  Will  as  Declared  by  Jeremiah, 
THE  People  Migrate  to  Egypt. 
Schmidt  naturally  regards  this  section,  and  the  whole  story  of 
the  migration  to  Egypt  and  the  incidents  said  to  have  happened 
there,  as  historically  very  dubious.  Generally  it  is  assigned  to 
Baruch,  though  Duhm  and  others  suppose  that  the  supplementer  has 
been  at  work  in  Jeremiah's  reply.  In  any  case  the  narrative  itself 
is  thoroughly  trustworthy. 

xlii.  1-6.  The  captains  and  people  ask  Jeremiah  to  pray  for 
direction,  and  he  promises  to  do  so  and  declare  faithfully  Yahweh's 
answer.  They  promise  that  they  will  obey,  whatever  the  answer 
may  be. 

7-22.  After  ten  days  the  word  of  Yahweh  came  to  the  prophet, 
and  he  announced  it  to  the  people.  If  they  will  abide  in  the 
land  Yahweh  will  build  them  up,  and  the  king  of  Babylon  will  not 
molest  them.  But  if  they  determine  to  go  into  Egypt,  instead 
of  the  peace  and  plenty  they  thus  hope  to  secure,  sword  and 
famine  shall  overtake  them,  and  they  shall  die  there.  As 
Yahweh's  anger  has  been  poured  on  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem,  so  it 
will  be  on  the  Jews  in  Egypt.  They  had  dealt  deceitfully  in 
asking  for  Yahweh's  direction  and  promising  to  fulfil  it,  and  then 
disobeying. 

xliii.  1-7.  The  captains  and  proud  men  replied  to  Jeremiah  that 
he  lied  in  claiming  to  speak  in  Yahweh's  name  ;  it  was  at  the  insti- 
gation of  Baruch,  and  death  and  captivity  at  the  hands  of  the 
Babylonians  would  be  the  result.  So  they  took  all  the  people, 
including  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  to  Tahpanhes  in  Egypt. 

xlii.  1.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  story  of  Ishmael's  atrocities 
no  reference  is  made  to  Jeremiah  or  Baruch,  It  is,  however, 
probable  that  they  were  under  Gedaliah's  protection,  and  carried 


192  JEREMIAH  42.  2-6.     B 

son  of  Kareah,  and  ^  Jezaniah  the  son  of  Hoshaiah,  and 
all  the  people  from  the  least  even  unto  the  greatest,  came 

2  near,  and  said  unto  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  Let,  we  pray 
thee,  our  supplication  ^be  accepted  before  thee,  and 
pray  for  us  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  even  for  all  this 
remnant ;  for  we  are  left  but  a  few  of  many,  as  thine 

3  eyes  do  behold  us :  that  the  Lord  thy  God  may  shew  us 
the  way  wherein  we  should  walk,  and  the  thing  that  we 

4  should  do.  Then  Jeremiah  the  prophet  said  unto  them, 
I  have  heard  you ;  behold,  I  will  pray  unto  the  Lord 
your  God  according  to  your  words ;  and  it  shall  come  to 
pass  that  w^hatsoever  thing  the  Lord  shall  answer  you, 
I  will  declare  it  unto   you ;  I  will  keep  nothing  back 

5  from  you.  Then  they  said  to  Jeremiah,  The  Lord  be 
a  true  and  faithful  witness  c  amongst  us,  if  we  do  not 
even  according  to  all  the  word  wherewith  the  Lord  thy 

6  God  shall  send  thee  to  us.     Whether  it  be  good,  or 

*  In  ch.  xliii.  2,  Azariah.  ^  Heh.  fall.  ^  Or,  against 

away  after  his  murder  and  then  rescued.     We  may  infer  this  with 
some  confidence  from  the  mode  of  reference  here. 

Jezaniah  the  son  of  Hoshaiah.  We  should  probably  read, 
with  the  LXX,  '  Azariah  the  son  of  Maaseiah : '  cf.  xliii.  2  and 
xl.  8. 

2,  3.  The  Jews  were  quite  sincere  in  their  desire  to  learn  what 
direction  Yahweh  had  for  them,  and  they  did  not  doubt  that 
Jeremiah  really  stood  in  the  council  of  God.  But  they  probably 
did  not  anticipate  that  the  response  would  be  what  it  was.  Escape 
from  territory  under  Chaldean  government  would  have  seemed  to 
them  so  obvious  a  necessity  that  they  would  not  look  for  more  than 
instructions  how  this  was  to  be  secured.  Notice  '  Yahweh  thy 
God '  answered  in  4  b3'-  *  Yahweh  your  God.'  In  5,  6  we  have  first 
'Yahweh  thy  God,'  then  'Yahweh  our  God.' 

4.  Jeremiah  hints  in  his  reply  that  the  answer  may  be  unwel- 
come. His  own  judgement  of  the  situation  was  no  doubt  what  he 
subsequently  learned  the  Divine  will  to  be  ;  and  he  knew  that  his 
petitioners  had  made  up  their  minds  in  the  contrary  direction. 
Still  they  protest  that  whatever  be  the  response,  evil  no  less  than 
good,  they  will  obey  it  (5,  6). 


JERBMIAH   12.  7-1 1.     B  193 

whether  it  be  evil,  we  will  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord 
our  God,  to  whom  we  send  thee ;  that  it  may  be  well 
with  us,  when  we  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord  our  God. 

And  it  came  to  pass  after  ten  days,  that  the  word  of  7 
the  I^RD  came  unto  Jeremiah.     Then  called  he  Johanan  8 
the  son  of  Kareah,  and  all  the  captains  of  the  forces 
which  were  with  him,  and  all  the  people  from  the  least 
even  to  the  greatest,  and  said  unto  them.  Thus  saith  the  9 
Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  unto  whom  ye  sent  me  to  '^pre- 
sent your  supplication  before  him :  If  ye  will  still  abide  10 
in  this  land,  then  will  I  build  you,  and  not  pull  you  down, 
and  I  will  plant  you,  and  not  pluck  you  up :  for  I  repent 
me  of  the  evil  that  I  have  done  unto  you.     Be  not  afraid  n 

<"  Or,  lay 

*7.  This  verse  is  very  important  for  the  insight  it  gives  us  into 
the  nature  of  prophecy.  Jeremiah  does  not  confuse  the  Divine 
revelation  with  the  desires  of  his  heart  or  the  conclusions  of  his 
judgement.  Otherwise  he  would  not  have  needed  to  wait  for  ten 
days.  His  waiting  was  not  that  his  own  mind  might  be  made  up, 
or  to  still  the  excitement  among  the  people  ;  for  to  prolong  the 
suspense,  especJally  when  every  hour  seemed  precious,  would 
have  been  fatal  to  such  an  endeavour ;  nor  yet  in  the  hope  that 
new  circumstances  might  guide  his  decision.  It  was  quite  literally 
because  he  would  not  announce  as  a  Divine  revelation  an  answer 
which  he  did  not  definitely  know  to  be  such.  It  was  an  element 
in  his  prophetic  gift  that  he  could  clearly  and  sharply  distinguish 
between  objective  and  subjective,  between  the  word  of  God  and 
the  thought  of  his  own  heart. 

9-22.  In  this  answer  Duhm,  followed  by  Erbt,  Comill,  and 
Rothstein,  strikes  out  15-18  as  due  to  a  supplementer.  The 
kernel  of  the  oracle  he  finds  in  19-21  ;  what  belongs  to  it  in  9-14 
he  regards  as  much  worked  over. 

10.  I  repent  me.  To  the  modern  reader  this  suggests  that 
Yahweh  regrets  what  He  has  done,  and  if  He  were  again  placed 
in  the  same  situation  would  act  differently.  This,  however,  is 
not  the  meaning.  It  is  no  confession  of  mistake  or  remorse  for 
the  evil  He  has  inflicted.  But  now  that  His  righteous  judgement 
has  been  executed,  His  attitude  to  His  people  is  changed,  and  for 
the  future  He  is  prepared  to  build  up  those  whom  His  justice  has 
forced  Him  to  pull  down. 

11.  They  not  unnaturally  feared  that  Nebuchadnezzar  would 
II  O 


194  JEREMIAH  42.  12-1S.     BS 

of  the  king  of  Babylon,  of  whom  ye  are  afraid ;  be  not 
afraid  of  him,  saith  the  Lord  :  for  I  am  with  you  to  save 

1 2  you,  and  to  deliver  you  from  his  hand.  And  I  will  grant 
you  mercy,  that  he  may  have  mercy  upon  you,  and  cause 

1 3  you  to  return  to  your  own  land.  But  if  ye  say.  We  will  not 
dwell  in  this  land ;  so  that  ye  obey  not  the  voice  of  the 

14  Lord  your  God ;  saying,  No ;  but  we  will  go  into  the 
land  of  Egypt,  where  we  shall  see  no  war,  nor  hear  the 
sound  of  the  trumpet,  nor  have  hunger  of  bread  j  and 

15  there  will  we  dwell:  [S]  now  therefore  hear  ye  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  O  remnant  of  Judah :  thus  saith  the  Lord 
of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  If  ye  wholly  set  your  faces  to 

16  enter  into  Egypt,  and  go  to  sojourn  there;  then  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  the  sword,  which  ye  fear,  shall  overtake 
you  there  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  the  famine,  whereof 
ye  are  afraid,  ^  shall  follow  hard  after  you  there  in  Egypt ; 

1 7  and  there  ye  shall  die.  So  shall  it  be  with  all  the  men 
that  set  their  faces  to  go  into  Egypt  to  sojourn  there ;  they 
shall  die  by  the  sword,  by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pesti- 
lence :  and  none  of  them  shall  remain  or  escape  from  the 

18  evil  that  I  will  bring  upon  them.  For  thus  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel ;  As  mine  anger  and 
my  fury  hath  been  poured  forth  upon  the  inhabitants  of 

^  Heb.  shall  cleave  after  you. 

treat  the  murder  of  his  representative  as  a  new  act  of  rebellion  on 
the  part  of  the  incorrigible  Jews,  and  exact  vengeance  without 
too  nice  a  discrimination  between  the  guilty  and  the  innocent. 

12.  to  retiim  to  your  own  land.  Since  they  were  in  their 
own  land  at  the  time,  we  should  no  doubt  point  the  text  differ- 
ently and  read,  with  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate,  '  to  dwell  in  your 
own  land.' 

14.  The  advantages  of  Egypt  appeal  to  them  as  forcibly  as  they 
did  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  desert.  After  the  stress  of  the  past 
and  the  terror  of  the  present,  an  idylUc  future  seems  to  lie  before 
them.  If  'war '  has  a  definite  reference,  it  may  be  to  a  punitive 
expedition  sent  by  Babylon  or  to  an  attack  led  by  Ishmael. 


JEREMIAH  42.  19—43.  2.     SB  195 

Jerusalem,  so  shall  my  fury  be  poured  forth  upon  you, 
when  ye  shall  enter  into  Egypt :  and  ye  shall  be  an 
execration,  and  an  astonishment,  and  a  curse,  and  a  re- 
proach; and  ye  shall  see  this  place  no  more.     [B]  The  19 
Lord  hath  spoken  concerning  you,  O  remnant  of  Judah, 
Go  ye  not  into  Egypt :  know  certainly  that  I  have  testified 
unto  you  this  day.     For  ye  have  dealt  deceitfully  ^  against  20 
your  ovm.  souls;  for  ye  sent  me  unto  the  Lord  your 
God,  saying.  Pray  for  us  unto  the  Lord  our  God ;  and 
according  unto  all  that  the  Lord  our  God  shall  say,  so 
declare  unto  us,  and  we  will  do  it :  and  I  have  this  day  21 
declared  it  to  you ;  but  ye  have  not  obeyed  the  voice  of 
the  Lord  your  God  in  any  thing  for  the  which  he  hath 
sent  me  unto  you.     Now  therefore  know  certainly  that  ye  22 
shall  die  by  the  sword,  by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pesti- 
lence,  in  the  place  whither  ye  desire  to  go  to  sojourn 
there. 

And  it  came  to  pass  that  when  Jeremiah  had  made  an  43 
end  of  speaking  unto  all  the  people  all  the  words  of  the 
Lord  their  God,   wherewith  the  Lord  their  God  had 
sent   him   to   them,  even  all  these  words,  then  spake  2 
Azariah  the  son  of  Hoshaiah,  and  Johanan  the  son  of 

°-  Or,  t'n  your  souls 

19;  We  should  probably  read  *  This  is  the  word  of  the  Lord 
unto  you '  (so  Targum,  Symmachus,  and  Vulgate).  If  15-18  is  a 
subsequent  insertion,  this  verse  is  then  the  apodosis  -to  13,  14. 
We  should  also  insert,  with  the  LXX,  '  Now  therefore '  before 
*  know.'  No  explicit  statement  of  their  intention  to  disobey 
seems  to  have  been  needed.     Jeremiah  saw  it  in  their  faces. 

20.  dealt  deceitfully  aguinst.  The  Hebrew  is  rather  dubious. 
It  would  be  better,  with  the  LXX,  to  read  '  ye  have  done  evil 
against.'  They  are  responsible  for  the  evil  which  will  follow, 
since  they  took  the  initiative  in  requesting  Divine  direction  and 
spontaneously  promised  to  obey  it. 

xllii.  1.  The  people  heard  Jeremiah  to  the  end  without  inter- 
ruption. 

O  2 


196  JEREMIAH  43.  3-5.     B 

Kareah,  and  all  the  proud  men,  saying  unto  Jeremiah, 
Thou  speakest  falsely  :  the  Lord  our  God  hath  not  sent 
thee  to  say,  Ye  shall  not  go  into  Egypt  to  sojourn  there : 

3  but  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah  setteth  thee  on  against 
us,  for  to  deliver  us  into  the  hand  of  the  Chaldeans, 
that  they  may  put  us  to  death,  and  carry  us  away  captives 

4  to  Babylon.  So  Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah,  and  all  the 
captains  of  the  forces,  and  all  the  people,  obeyed  not 
the  voice  of  the  Lord,  to  dwell  in  the  land  of  Judah. 

5  But  Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah,  and  all  the  captains 

2.  and  all  the  proud  men,  saying".  The  Hebrew  for  '  saying' 
is  against  the  idiom  of  the  language  and  not  the  usual  expression  ; 
we  should  read  *  defiant '  (hammonm  for  ^om^yint),  with  Giese- 
brecht  and  others.  The  LXX  omits  *  proud,'  and  is  followed  by 
Cornill  and  Rothstein. 

Thou  speakest  falsely.  They  do  not,  of  course,  mean  to 
disobey  Yahweh's  word,  but  it  runs  so  counter  to  their  reason 
and  their  wishes  that  they  will  not  believe  that  it  is  His  word. 
Yet  they  do  not  venture  to  hint  that  Jeremiah  has  deliberately  con- 
cocted the  message  and  palmed  it  off  on  the  people  as  Yahweh's 
oracle.  Baruch  has  got  the  old  man  under  his  influence,  and 
played  on  his  senility,  so  that  he  attributes  to  heaven-sent  inspira- 
tion what  is  due  only  to  Baruch's  sinister  suggestion.  Baruch 
had  perhaps  allowed  his  judgement  on  the  flight  into  Egypt  to 
become  known.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Jeremiah  makes  no  answer. 
It  would  be  precarious  to  argue  that  this  was  due  to  any  doubt, 
which  he  had  to  solve  through  internal  debate,  and  the  solution  of 
which  was  expressed  in  the  scene  at  Tahpanhes  recorded  in  8-13. 
His  certainty  was  not  affected  by  the  reception  accorded  to  his 
message. 

5.  that .  .  .  Judah.  This  is  a  strange  expression,  which  would 
have  been  suitable  to  express  a  return  from  a  world-wide  disper- 
sion, but  not  one  from  the  neighbouring  lands.  The  LXX  reads 
simply  '  that  were  returned  to  sojourn  in  the  land.'  This  may 
well  be  the  true  reading,  the  Hebrew  having  arisen  out  of  it 
through  the  almost  mechanical  addition  by  a  heedless  scribe  of 
phraseology  familiar  in  a  different  connexion.  There  is  force  in 
CornilPs  remark  that  we  do  not  expect  in  this  verse  a  special 
category  of  the  remnant,  this  comes  in  6,  but  rather  something 
which  was  characteristic  of  the  whole  remnant.  Since  in  this 
passage  '  sojourn  '  is  used  only  with  reference  to  Egypt,  he  thinks 
some  such  clause  as  '  who  had  set  their  faces  to  sojourn  in  the  land 


JEREMIAH  43.  6-8.     B  197 

of  the  forces,  took  all  the  remnant  of  Judah,  that  were 
returned  from  all  the  nations  whither  they  had  been 
driven  to  sojourn  in  the  land  of  Judah  ;  the  men,  and  6 
the  women,  and  the  children,  and  the  king's  daughters, 
and  every  person  that  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the 
guard  had  left  with  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikara,  the 
son  of  Shaphan,  and  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  and  Baruch 
the  son  of  Neriah ;  and  they  came  into  the  land  of  7 
Egypt ;  for  they  obeyed  not  the  voice  of  the  Lord  :  and 
they  came  even  to  Tahpanhes.     Then  came  the  word  8 

of  Egypt '  would  answer  all  requirements,  but  confesses  himself 
at  a  loss  to  understand  how  the  present  text  can  have  arisen  out 
of  it. 

6.  It  is  not  clear  whether  Jeremiah  and  Baruch  were  forcibly 
carried  into  Egypt,  or  voluntarily  accompanied  the  refugees.  The 
latter  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  prophet's  protest.  His 
vocation  lifted  him  above  the  common  duty.  Just  as  he  advised 
others  to  desert  to  the  Chaldeans,  but  felt  his  own  place  to  be  in 
the  doomed  city  to  the  last ;  so  he  may  have  counselled  the 
remnant  to  remain  in  the  land,  but  when  they  refused  have  felt  it 
his  duty  to  accompany  them. 

7.  Tahpanhes :  i.  e.  Daphne  or  Defenneh  (ii.  16),  a  frontier 
city  of  Egypt,  lying  on  the  road  out  of  Egypt  to  Palestine. 

xliii.  8-13.  Jeremiah  Predicts  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
WILL  Conquer  Egypt. 
Duhm  regards  this  section  as  '  historically  worthless  Midrash,' 
but  this  judgement  is  not  generally  accepted.  The  passage 
presents  real  difficulties,  but  they  are  largely  removed  by  textual 
criticism.  As  a  frontier  fortress  Tahpanhes  would  quite  naturally 
be  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  an  early  stage  of  the  invasion  of 
Egypt.  The  narrative  is  probably  from  the  pen  of  Baruch,  but 
may  have  been  touched  by  a  later  editor.  It  may  be  added  that 
Erbt's  discussion  of  the  passage  is  especially  suggestive,  though 
it  would  be  unwarrantable  to  suppose  that  the  scene  expressed 
any  re-establishment  of  the  propliet's  conviction  as  to  the  flight 
into  Egypt  which  had  been  shaken  by  the  accusation  that  Baruch, 
not  Yahwch,  was  the  source  of  it  (see  note  on  2). 

xliii.  8-13.  While  Jeremiah  was  in  Tahpanhes  Yahwch  bade 
him  take  great  stones  and  bury  them  at  the  entry  of  Pharaoh's 
house,  in  the  sight  of  the  Jews,  and  tell  them  in  His  name  that  He 


198  JEREMIAH  43.  9.     B 

9  of  the  Lord  unto  Jeremiah  in  Tahpanhes,  saying,  Take 

will  bring  His  servant  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  shall  set  his  throne 
over  the  buried  stones.  He  shall  smite  Egypt,  and  burn  the 
temples  of  its  gods,  and  treat  the  land  of  Egypt  as  a  shepherd 
treats  his  garment,  and  break  the  obelisks  of  Beth-shemesh. 

zliil.  8.  The  revelation  seems  to  have  come  to  Jeremiah  soon 
after  the  arrival  at  Tahpanhes.  The  company  would  probably 
have  to  halt  there  to  receive  permission  to  proceed. 

9.  The  text  is  probably  corrupt.  The  words  rendered  *  and 
hide  them  in  mortar  in  the  brickwork '  have  occasioned  much 
difficulty;  Graf  in  fact  found  all  the  explanations  offered  so  un- 
satisfactory that  he  was  tempted  to  think  that  the  action  was  not 
really  performed,  a  view  taken  by  some  scholars  with  reference  to 
the  symbolic  actions  recorded  in  Ezekiel.  This,  however,  must 
not  be  accepted  here.  The  LXX  read  a  difTerent  text,  '  in  the 
forecourt ; '  the  other  Greek  Versions  and  the  Vulgate  a  different 
text  again.  Moreover  the  two  words  in  the  Hebrew  are  suspici- 
ously alike  ;  one  of  them  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  the  other  only 
in  Neh.  iii.  14  and  possibly  2  Sam.  xii.  31.  Gillies  thinks  the  scribe 
intended  to  write  the  second  word,  but  by  a  slip  wrote  the  first, 
and  then  without  crossing  it  out  wrote  the  word  he  had  meant  to 
write.  More  probably,  however,  we  should  strike  out  the  second 
word  as  due  to  dittography  of  the  first,  and  then  emend  the 
first  word  by  omitting  a  consonant,  reading  'in  secret'  for  *  in 
mortar,'  with  the  Vulgate  and  the  Greek  Versions  other  than  the 
LXX.  The  clause  would  then  run  'and  hide  them  in  secret  at 
the  entry,'  &c.  Probably,  as  Erbt  and  Cornill  think,  the  incident 
occurred  at  night.  This  is  not  negatived  by  the  clause  '  in  sight 
of  the  men  of  Judah,'  for  in  Ezek.  xii.  1-16  we  have  a  similar  sign 
enacted  by  night  in  the  sight  of '  the  rebellious  house  : '  cf.  especially 
'  I  brought  it  forth  in  the  dark,  and  bare  it  upon  my  shoulder  in 
their  sight '  (Ezek.  xii.  7,  cf.  6).  It  is  before  a  company  of  Jews 
and  not  the  whole  population  of  the  city  that  the  mysterious  sign 
is  enacted.  The  aged  prophet  painfully  carries  large  stones  to  the 
entrance  of  Pharaoh's  house  and,  as  the  wondering  Jews  look  on, 
buries  them  before  it.  The  uncanny  scene  enacted  under  cover 
of  the  night  soon  receives  its  explanation.  The  Jews  have  come 
to  Egypt  to  escape  from  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  the  king's  long 
arm  will  at  length  reach  them  there.  He  will  invade  Egypt  and 
above  these  very  stones  will  erect  his  throne.  The  act  of  the 
prophet  is  no  mere  sign.  Just  as  the  prophetic  word,  once  uttered, 
moves  forward  to  efTect  its  own  fulfilment,  so  the  prophetic  deed 
is  not  simply  a  prediction,  it  sets  in  motion  the  train  of  events 
which  is  to  lead  up  to  its  realization.  To  an  audience  familiar 
with  this  almost  magical  efficacy  of  prophets'  words  and  acts,  an 


JEREMIAH    13.  10-12.     B  199 

great  stones  in  thine  hand,  and  "-hide  them  in  mortar 
in  the  brickwork,  which  is  at  the  entry  of  Pharaoh's 
house  in  Tahpanhes,  in  the  sight  of  the  men  of  Judah; 
and  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  10 
God  of  Israel :  Behold,  I  will  send  and  take  Nebucha- 
drezzar the  king  of  Babylon,  my  servant,  and  will  set 
his  throne  upon  these  stones  that  I  have  hid;  and  he 
shall  spread  his  ^  royal  pavilion  over  them.  And  he  shall  1 1 
come,  and  shall  smite  the  land  of  Egypt ;  such  as  are 
for  death  shall  be  given  to  death,  and  such  as  are  for 
captivity  to  captivity,  and  such  as  are  for  the  sword  to 
the  sword.     And  I  will  kindle  a  fire  in  the  houses  of  12 

^  Or,  lay  them  zviih  mortar  in  the  pavement  (or  square) 
^  fOr,  glittering 

act  of  this  kind  must  have  appealed  with  a  force  we  can  hardly 
imagine.  They  would  feel  themselves  to  be  present  when  new 
forces  were  being  released  ;  they  stood  at  the  fountain-head  of  a 
new  current  in  history. 

at  the  entry  of  Pharaoh's  house.  This  is  generally  regarded 
as  a  royal  palace,  and  the  question  has  been  raised  whether  Jere- 
miah could  have  ventured  on  this  action.  More  probably  it  was 
not  a  palace  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  but  a  house  used  for 
the  royal  residence  if  the  king  happened  to  visit  Tahpanhes,  as  in 
view  of  its  military  importance  he  would  do  at  times.  And  the 
stones  would  not  be  buried  within  the  residence  itself  but  in  front 
of  it.  The  scene  of  the  prophet's  operations  may  have  been  the 
brick  pavement  by  the  fort  excavated  by  Prof.  Petrie  in  1886.  But 
if  we  omit  *  in  the  brickwork  '  one  ground  for  the  identification 
disappears,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  the  prophet  would  have  to 
remove  part  of  a  pavement  before  he  buried  the  stones. 

10.  and  will  set:  LXX  and  Syriac  better,  'he  shall  set.' 
royal  pavilion.    The  Hebrew  word  occurs  only  here.     The 

root  may  mean  '  beautiful,'  'brilliant.'  The  word  must  express 
here  something  appertaining  to  the  king's  royal  state,  it  may  mean 
the  pavilion  or  perhaps  the  carpet  on  which  his  throne  was  placed. 
The  order  of  the  clauses  rather  favours  the  view  that  the  pavilion 
is  meant,  since  the  spreading  of  the  carpet  would  precede  the 
placing  of  the  throne. 

11.  Cf.  XV.  2. 

12.  I  wiU  kindle:  read,  with  LXX,  Syr.,  and  Vulg.,  'he  will 
kindle.' 


200  JEREMIAH  43.  13.     B 

the  gods  of  Egypt ;  and  he  shall  burn  them,  and  carry 

them  away  captives:    and  he,  shall  array  himself  with 

the  land  of  Egypt,  as  a  shepherd  putteth  on  his  garment ; 

[3  and  he  shall  go  forth  from  thence  in  peace.     He  shall 

also  break  the  ^  pillars  of  ^  Beth-shemesh,  that  is  in  the 

•^  fOr,  obelisks  ^  Or ^  The  house  of  the  sun     Probably, 

Heliopolis  or  On. 


he  shall  array  .  .  .  g-arment.  This  is  a  difficult  clause,  and 
very  variously  interpreted.  The  word  rendered  *  array  himself ' 
means  usually  '  to  wrap  oneself,'  and  many  abide  by  this  sense 
here.  The  point,  however,  is  by  no  means  clear.  The  best  repre- 
sentatives of  this  view  take  it  to  be  the  ease  with  which  the  king 
of  Babylon  will  possesshimself  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  But  the  idea 
of  clothing  oneself  in  a  country  is  very  strange,  and  the  point  of 
the  comparison  ought  to  have  been  clearly  expressed.  Hitzig  and 
Duhm  think  the  meaning  is  that  just  as  a  shepherd  reverses  his 
mantle,  wearing  now  the  inside  of  the  fleece  and  now  the  outside 
next  the  skin,  according  as  the  weather  is  cold  or  hot,  so  the  king 
of  Babylon  will  reverse  things  in  Egypt,  turn  them  upside  down. 
This  sense,  however,  is  very  dubious.  Others  prefer  the  rend- 
ering *  roll  up  ; '  the  point  is  then  that  the  conqueror  takes  up 
Egypt  and  its  possessions  as  easily  as  the  shepherd  rolls  up  his 
mantle  with  all  it  contains  and  carries  it  with  him.  The  LXX 
has  a  peculiar  rendering  to  the  effect  that  Nebuchadnezzar  will 
treat  Egypt  as  a  shepherd  cleanses  his  vermin-infested  garment, 
picking  off  the  objectionable  inmates  one  by  one.  He  can  do  this 
deliberately  and  thoroughly,  since  he  has  plenty  of  leisure.  The 
metaphor  is  not  one  which  would  commend  itself  to  the  taste  of 
the  present  day,  but  in  itself  it  is  vigorous  and  effective,  expressing 
Jeremiah's  contempt  for  the,  Egyptians  and  his  recognition  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  military  power.  This  rendering  is  accepted  by 
Cornill,  von  Gall,  and  Rothstein. 

13.  This  verse  is  regarded  by  some  as  an  addition,  since  after 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  in  12  to  leave  Egypt  in  peace,  it  is  out  of 
place  to  return  to  his  destruction  of  the  obelisks  and  temples. 
Rothstein  escapes  this  objection  by  inserting  13^^  after  12^,  and 
striking  out  13^  as  a  repetition  of  12^ 

the  pillars  .  .  .  Eg'ypt.  If  the  text  is  correct,  Beth-shemesh 
is  probably  a  proper  name,  to  be  identified,  as  the  margin  says, 
with  Heliopolis  or  On.  The  clause  '  that  is  in  the  land  of  Egypt,' 
is  probably  a  gloss  intended  to  distinguish  the  place  mentioned 
from  the  Beth-shemesh  in  Palestine,  a  distinction  quite  needless 
for  the  writer  to  have  made.  The  LXX  has  '  that  is  in  On,'  so 
probably  did  not  take  Beth-shemesh  as  a  proper  name,  but  under- 


JEREMIAH  M.  I.     BBS  201 

land  of  Egypt ;  and  the  houses  of  the  gods  of  Egypt 
shall  he  burn  with  fire. 

[BS]  The  word  that  came  to  Jeremiah  concerning  all  44 

stood  the  whole  clause  to  mean  'the  temple  of  the  sun  which  is  in 
On.'  Heliopolis  was  a  city  about  six  miles  north-east  of  Cairo. 
It  was  famous  for  its  temple  of  the  sun,  and  the  avenue  of  obelisks 
in  front  of  it,  '  Cleopatra's  Needle '  was  one  of  these  obelisks ;  of 
the  rest  one  only  remains  in  its  place.  Others  are  in  Rome, 
Constantinople,  and  Paris. 

The  question  whether  Nebuchadnezzar  actually  invaded  Egypt 
has  been  much  discussed,  but  a  fragmentary  inscription  of  his 
shows  that  in  568  b.  c.  such  an  invasion  did  take  place,  in  which 
the  Egyptian  king  Amasis  was  defeated.  At  that  time  Jeremiah  is 
hardl}'  likely  to  have  been  still  alive. 

xliv.  Jeremiah  Testifies  against  the  Worship  of  the 
Queen  of  Heaven. 
This  section,  painful  though  it  is  to  see  the  rebellious  temper 
which  animated  the  people  to  the  last,  is  of  great  historical  interest. 
The  effect  of  the  disasters  which  had  come  so  thickly  upon  the 
people  was  not  unnaturally  that  many  felt  themselves  dispensed 
from  the  service  of  a  God  who  could  not  or  would  not  help  them. 
In  a  most  instructive  passage  in  Ezekiel  we  read  of  those  who, 
while  the  city  and  Temple  were  still  standing,  practised  a  degraded 
form  of  idolatry,  saying  '  Yahweh  seeth  us  not ;  Yahweh  hath 
forsaken  the  land'  (Ezek.  viii.  12).  Similarly  the  refugees  in 
Egypt  argued  quite  plausibly,  it  is  only  since  the  finding  of  the 
Book  of  the  Law  and  the  introduction  of  new-fangled  ideas  and 
suppression  of  older  forms  of  worship  that  misfortunes  have  over- 
whelmed us.  The  practical  inference  they  drew  was  that  they 
would  do  well  to  resume  the  cults  they  had  abandoned,  and  enjoy 
the  prosperity  which  had  been  their  lot  in  those  days  of  religious 
breadth  and  material  prosperity.  The  present  chapter  is  based  on 
Baruch's  memoirs,  but  it  has  received  not  a  little  expansion.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  no  information  is  given  us  at  the  outset  as  to  the 
occasion,  and  that  we  have  to  infer  the  situation  from  what  is  told 
us  in  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter.  The  address  of  Jeremiah 
(2-14)  is  largely  made  up  of  phraseology  such  as  is  elsewhere 
familiar  to  us  in  the  book.  But  even  in  this  we  may  recognize 
that  the  drift  of  the  prophet's  argument  is  correctly  reproduced. 

xliv.  1-10.  Jeremiah  spoke  to  the  Jews  in  Egypt  as  follows  : 
You  have  seen  how  Yahweh  has  made  Jerusalem  and  Judah 
desolate    for    the   idolatry    they   practised,  though   He  sent   His 


202  JEREMIAH  44.  i.     BS 

the  Jews  which  dwelt  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  which  dwelt 

prophets  to  warn  them.  Why  then  are  you  doing  evil  by  prac- 
tising idolatry  in  Egypt,  to  bring  utter  ruin  on  yourselves  ?  Have 
you  forgotten  the  sin  of  your  fathers  and  your  own  sin  ? 

11-14.  Therefore  Yahweh  will  cut  off  the  remnant  of  Judah 
that  is  in  Egypt,  so  that  none  shall  return  but  fugitives. 

15-19.  Then  the  assembly  replied  that  they  would  not  hearken ; 
but  they  would  perform  their  vow  to  worship  the  Queen  of 
Heaven,  as  they  had  done  in  Judah,  for  then  all  was  well  with 
them.  But  since  they  had  abandoned  her  worship,  disaster  had 
been  their  portion.  And  the  worship  offered  by  the  women  had 
been  with  the  consent  of  their  husbands. 

20-28.  Jeremiah  replied,  Yahweh  took  note  of  your  idolatrous 
worship,  till  He  could  bear  it  no  longer,  hence  the  desolation  of 
your  land  and  the  evil  you  are  suffering.  So  since  you  hold  fast 
your  vows  to  worship  the  Queen  of  Heaven,  do  so  ;  but  know  that 
Yahweh  will  slay  all  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  so  that  only  very  few  shall 
return  to  the  land  of  Judah.  Then  it  will  be  known  whose  word 
shall  stand. 

29-30.  And  the  sign  shall  be  that  Pharaoh  Hophra  shall  be  given 
into  the  power  of  his  foes. 

zliv.  1.  The  place  where  the  incident  occurred  is  not  named, 
but  only  the  localities  from  which  the  assembly  was  drawn.  The 
clause  mentioning  these  is  struck  out  by  several  as  probably  a  later 
insertion,  and  the  presence  of  Jews  from  Pathros,  i.  e.  Upper  Egypt, 
asserted  in  15  (see  note),  is  surprising.  As  we  know  from  the 
recently  discovered  Aramaic  papyri,  there  was  a  colony  of  Jews 
in  Pathros,  and  some  of  these  may  have  been  present.  Moreover 
xxiv.  8  justifies  the  view  that  even  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
there  was  a  body  of  Jews  in  Egypt.  It  is  possible  that  some  of 
these  had  come  to  Tahpanhes  to  meet  the  fugitives.  But  the 
impression  made  by  the  narrative  is  rather  that  some  time  had 
elapsed  since  their  arrival.  Not  all  at  once  is  the  reversion  to 
heathenism  likely  to  have  been  accomplished.  True,  the  people 
had  acted  in  defiance  of  Jeremiah's  exhortations  ;  yet  this  had  not 
been  in  their  minds  rebellion  against  Yahweh,  but  a  refusal  to 
recognize  the  prophet  as  His  spokesman.  The  stage  they  had  now 
reached  did  not  involve  a  formal  renunciation  of  Yahweh,  but  a 
recognition  of  other  deities  as  legitimate  objects  of  worship.  But 
after  the  Deuteronomic  Reformation  it  was  a  distinct  repudiation 
of  the  principles  on  which  it  had  rested.  It  was  thus  a  reversion 
to  the  pre-Reformation  standpoint,  but  it  was  a  sin  against  light 
to  a  greater  degree  than  the  idolatry  of  the  earlier  period.  In 
fairness,  however,  it  must  be  admitted  that  from  the  popular  stand- 
point not  a  little  was  to  be  said  for  the  view  that  the  Reformation 
had  proved  a  disaster. 


JEREMIAH  44.  2-7.     BS  203 

at  Migdol,  and  at  Tahpanhes,  and  at  Noph,  and  in  the 
country  of  Pathios,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  2 
the  God  of  Israel :  Ye  have  seen  all  the  evil  that  I  have 
brought  upon  Jerusalem,  and  upon  all  the  cities  of  Judah  ; 
and,  behold,  this  day  they  are  a  desolation,  and  no  man 
dwclleth  therein  ;    because   of  their   wickedness  which  3 
they  have  committed  to  provoke  me  to  anger,  in  that 
they   went  to  burn  incense,  and  to  serve  other  gods, 
whom  they  knew  not,  neither  they,  nor  ye,  nor  your 
fathers.     Howbeit  I  sent  unto  you  all  my  servants  the  4 
prophets,  rising  up  early  and  sending  them,  saying,  Oh, 
do  not  this  abominable  thing  that  I  hate.     But  they  5 
hearkened  not,  nor  inclined  their  ear  to  turn  from  their 
wickedness,  to  burn  no  incense  unto  other  gods.  AVhei^-  6 
fore  my  fury  and  mine  anger  was  poured  forth,  and  was 
kindled  in   the  cities  of  Judah  and  in  the  streets   of 
Jerusalem;  and  they  are  wasted  and  desolate,  as  it  is 
this  day.     Therefore  now  thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  1 

Migdol  was  another  frontier  town  a  little  to  the  east  of 
Tahpanhes,  now  known  as  Tell  es-S^rnut.  It  lay  on  the  high  road 
from  Asia  into  Egypt,  and  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Migdol 
of  Exod.  xiv.  2.  For  Noph  see  on  ii.  16.  Pathros  is  Upper  Egypt. 
Tlic  Egyptian  name  Pa-to-ris  means  *  Land  of  the  South.' 

2.  Tlie  occasion  of  the  address  is  not  defined,  as  no  doubt  it 
would  be  in  Baruch's  memoirs,  but  apparently  it  was  some  religious 
festival  at  which  Jews  of  the  neighbouring  localities  had  come 
together  ;  the  people  began  their  preparations  for  the  worship  of 
the  Queen  of  Heaven  (vii.  18),  and  thus  called  forth  the  prophet's 
denunciation.  The  prophet's  address  has  probably  been  a  good 
deal  edited,  but  no  satisfactory  construction  of  the  original  is  now 
possible. 

3-5.  The  fluctuation  between  the  second  and  third  person  may  be 
due  partly  to  textual  corruption,  partl3'  to  expansion. 

bum  incense:  better  'to  offer  sacrifice'  (see  note  on  i.  16), 
and  so  throughout  the  chapter.  For  the  latter  part  of  the  verse 
cf.  xix.  4. 

4.  Cf.  vii.  25,  XXV.  4,  &c. 

6.  Cf.  vii.  20,  xxxiii.  10,  xlii.  18. 

7.  against  your  own  souls :  cf  xxvi.  19. 


204  JEREMIAH  41.  8-14.     BS 

of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  Wherefore  commit  ye  this 
great  evil  against  your  own  souls,  to  cut  off  from  you 
man  and  woman,  infant  and  suckling,  out  of  the  midst 

S  of  Judah,  to  leave  you  none  remaining ;  in  that  ye  pro- 
voke me  unto  anger  with  the  works  of  your  hands, 
burning  incense  unto  other  gods  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
whither  ye  be  gone  to  sojourn ;  that  ye  may  be  cut  off, 
and  that  ye  may  be  a  curse  and  a  reproach  among  all 

9  the  nations  of  the  earth  ?  Have  ye  forgotten  the  wicked- 
ness of  your  fathers,  and  the  wickedness  of  the  kings  of 
Judah,  and  the  wickedness  of  their  wives,  and  your  own 
wickedness,  and  the  wickedness  of  your  wives,  which 
they  committed  in  the  land  of  Judah,  and  in  the  streets 

10  of  Jerusalem  ?  They  are  not  humbled  even  unto  this 
day,  neither  have  they  feared,  nor  walked  in  my  law, 
nor  in  my  statutes,  that  I  set  before  you  and  before  your 

11  fathers.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the 
God  of  Israel :  Behold,  I  will  set  my  face  against  you 

12  for  evil,  even  to  cut  off  all  Judah.  And  I  will  take  the 
remnant  of  Judah,  that  have  set  their  faces  to  go  into 
the  land  of  Egypt  to  sojourn  there,  and  they  shall  all 
be  consumed  ;  in  the  land  of  Egypt  shall  they  fall ;  they 
shall  be  consumed  by  the  sword  and  by  the  famine ; 
they  shall  die,  from  the  least  even  unto  the  greatest,  by 
the  sword  and  by  the  famine  :  and  they  shall  be  an 
execration,  and  an   astonishment,    and  a  curse,  and  a 

13  reproach.  For  I  will  punish  them  that  dwell  in  the  land 
of  Egypt,  as  I  have  punished  Jerusalem,  by  the  sword, 

1 4  by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pestilence :  so  that  none  of 
the  remnant  of  Judah,  which  are  gone  into  the  land 
of  Egypt  to  sojourn  there,  shall  escape  or  remain,  that 


9.  their  wives:  read,  with  LXX,  'their  princes.' 


JEREMIAH  44.  15-1S.     BS  B  205 

they  should  return  into  the  land  of  Judah,  to  the  which 
they  a  have  a  desire  to  return  to  dwell  there:  lor  none 
shall  return  save  such  as  shall  escape. 

[B]  Then  all  the  men  which  knew  that  their  wives  15 
burned  incense  unto  other  gods,  and  all  the  women  that 
stood  by,  a  great  assembly,  even  all  the  people  that 
dwelt  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  Pathros,  answered  Jere- 
miah, saying,  As  for  the  word  that  thou  hast  spoken  unto  16 
us  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  we  will  not  hearken  unto 
thee.      But  we  will  certainly  perform  every  word  that  is  17 
gone  forth  out  of  our  mouth,  to  burn  incense  unto  the 
queen  of  heaven,  and  to  pour  out  drink  offerings  unto 
her,  as  we  have  done,  we  and  our  fathers,  our  kings  and 
our  princes,  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in  the  streets  of 
Jerusalem  :  for  then  had  we  plenty  of  ^  victuals,  and  were 
well,  and  saw  no  evil.      But  since  we  left  off  to  burn  18 
'^  Heb.  lift  up  their  soul  ^  Hcb.  bread. 

12.  Cf.xlii.  18. 

15.  a  great  assembly :  Duhm  reads  '  with  a  loud  voice '  {qol  for 
qdhal). 

in  Pathros  :  see  on  i.  We  should  read  '  and  in  Pathros,' 
with  the  Syriac,  explaining  Egypt  as  Lower  Egypt ;  but  regard  the 
whole  clause  'even  .  .  .  Pathros'  as  an  insertion,  since  it  is  very 
unlikely  that  Jews,  especially  women,  had  come  from  Upper 
Egypt. 

17.  the  queen  of  heaven:  i.  e.  Ishtar;  see  note  on  vii.  18. 

18.  since  we  left  off:  i.  e.  apparently  at  the  time  of  the  Re- 
formation, though  some  think  the  worship  of  Ishtar  had  been 
resumed  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  ;  see  on  this  question  vol.  i, 
p.  150.  The  misfortunes  that  had  fallen  upon  them  in  quick 
succession  :  the  untimely  death  of  Josiah  ;  the  Egyptian  suzer- 
ainty and  deportation  of  Jehoahaz  to  Egypt ;  the  captivity  of 
Jehoiachin  and  the  flower  of  the  nation  ;  the  horrors  of  the 
second  siege  ;  the  capture  and  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  the 
blinding  of  the  king  and  execution  of  so  many  of  the  princes;  the 
captivity  to  Babylon  ;  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  and  the  flight  into 
Egypt ;  all  the  long  tragic  catalogue  they  naturally  from  their 
standpoint  attributed  to  the  wrath  of  the  neglected  Queen  of 
Heaven. 


2o6  JEREMIAH  44.  19-22.     BS 

incense  to  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  to  pour  out  drink 
offerings  unto  her,  we  have  wanted  all  things,  and  have 

19  been  consumed  by  the  sword  and  by  the  famine.  And 
when  we  burned  incense  to  the  queen  of  heaven,  and 
poured  out  drink  offerings  unto  her,  did  we  make  her 
cakes  to  ^  worship  her,  and  pour  out  drink  offerings  unto 

20  her,  without  our  husbands  ?  [S]  Then  Jeremiah  said 
unto  all  the  people,  to  the  men,  and  to  the  women,  even 
to  all  the  people  which  had  given  him  that  answer,  saying, 

21  The  incense  that  ye  burned  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in 
the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  ye  and  your  fathers,  your  kings 
and  your  princes,  and  the  people  of  the  land,  did  not  the 
Lord  remember  them,  and  came  it  not  into  his  mind? 

22  so  that  the  Lord  could  no  longer  bear,  because  of  the 
evil  of  your  doings,  and  because  of  the  abominations 

'^  fOr,  pourtray 

19.  From  the  close  of  the  verse  it  is  clear  that  the  women  are 
speaking,  but  the  Hebrew  text  of  15  treats  the  whole  speech  16- 
19  as  spoken  by  the  men  and  the  women.  The  Syriac  inserts  at 
the  beginning  of  this  verse  *  And  all  the  women  answered  and 
said.'  Whether  we  should  read  this,  making  of  course,  the  con- 
sequential change  of  masculine  into  feminine  in  the  Hebrew  ;  or 
whether  we  should  strike  out  the  reference  to  the  men  in  15  and 
so  make  the  whole  of  16-19  an  address  of  the  women,  changing 
the  masculines  into  feminines  throughout,  is  uncertain  ;  the  latter 
course  is  perhaps  preferable. 

to  worship  her :  better,  as  in  margin,  *  to  pourtray  her ; '  see 
vol.  i,  p.  151. 

without  our  husbands;  According  to  the  law  of  vows, 
Num.  XXX.  4-17,  women  needed  their  husbands'  consent  before 
their  vows  were  valid.  The  law  in  its  present  written  form  is 
late,  but  it  probably,  like  so  much  in  the  late  legislation,  embodies 
ancient  practice.  The  point  is  that  they  have  fulfilled  the  condi- 
tions requisite  for  a  vow.  If  Jeremiah  complains,  the  implication 
may  be,  let  him  settle  the  matter  with  the  husbands. 

20-23  is  regarded  as  secondary  by  Duhm,  who  is  followed  by 
several  scholars.  The  original  answer  he  finds  in  24  ff.,  the 
present  passage  simply  reproducing  the  contents  of  2-14. 

21.  The  incense:  better  'The  sacrifice.' 


JEREMIAH  44.  23-25.     SB  207 

which  ye  have  committed  ;  tlicrcfore  is  your  land  become 
a  desolation,  and  an  astonishment,  and  a  curse,  without 
inhabitant,  as  it  is  this  day.  Because  ye  have  burned  23 
incense,  and  because  ye  have  sinned  against  the  Lord, 
and  have  not  obeyed  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  nor  walked 
in  his  law,  nor  in  his  statutes,  nor  in  his  testimonies ; 
therefore  this  evil  is  happened  unto  you,  as  it  is  this 
day. 

[B]  Moreover  Jeremiah  said  unto  all  the  people,  and  24 
to  all  the  women,  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  all  Judah 
that  are  in  the  land  of  Egypt:  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  25 
hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  saying  :  Ye  and  your  wives  have 
both  spoken  with  your  mouths,  and  with  your  hands  have 
fulfilled  it,  saying.  We  will  surely  perform  our  vows  that 
we  have  vowed,  to  burn  incense  to  the  queen  of  heaven, 
and  to  pour  out  drink  offerings  unto  her  :  establish  then 


24.  all  Judah  .  .  .  Bgypt :  omitted  by  LXX,  probably  rightly. 

25.  Ye  and  your  wives  :  read  with  LXX,  '  Ye  women.'  The 
Hebrew  shows  that  the  women  are  addressed.  Ironically  he  bids 
them  perform  their  idolatrous  vows.  We  should  perhaps  read 
'  establish  your  words.' 

26-28.  In  its  present  form  the  text  implies  that  Yahweh's 
name  will  not  be  used  in  Egypt  by  any  Jew  (26),  since  all  the 
Jews  in  Egypt  will  be  completely  destroyed  (27)  ;  a  few  will 
escape  into  Judah,  and  the  Jewish  remnant  that  has  come  into 
Egypt  shall  know  whose  word  shall  stand  (28).  The  representa- 
tion does  not  hang  well  together  ;  we  have  the  definite  statement 
of  complete  extermination  modified  by  the  prediction  that  some 
will  return  to  Judah,  and  the  wording  of  28^  most  naturally 
suggests  that  the  Jews  who  are  in  Egypt  will  know  whose  word 
stands,  though  this  remnant  has  disappeared.  We  have  a  similar 
contradiction  in  14.  Duhm  thinks  that  in  its  original  form  Jere- 
miah continued  his  ironical  address  :  '  And  let  Yahweh's  name  be 
no  more  spoken  in  the  oath.  As  Yahweh  liveth,'  meaning  let  them 
abandon  the  worship  of  Yahweh  altogether.  Similarly  Erbt  and 
Cornill.  This  was  changed  into  the  prediction  in  the  present  text ; 
27  was  added  in  explanation.  28*  was  added  by  the  hand  to 
which  we  owe  14'',  but  28''  is  substantially  from  the  memoirs 
giving  the  close  of  Jeremiah's  address. 


2o8  JEREMIAH  44.  26-30.     BBS 

26  your  vows,  and  perform  your  vows.  [BSj  Therefore 
hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord,  all  Judah  that  dwell  in 
the  land  of  Egypt :  Behold,  I  have  sworn  by  my  great 
name,  saith  the  Lord,  that  my  name  shall  no  more  be 
named  in  the  mouth  of  any  man  of  Judah  in  all  the  land 

27  of  Egypt,  saying,  As  the  Lord  God  liveth.  Behold, 
I  watch  over  them  for  evil,  and  not  for  good  :  and  all 
the  men  of  Judah  that  are  in  the  land  of  Egypt  shall  be 
consumed  by  the  sword  and  by  the  famine,  until  there 

28  be  an  end  of  them.  And  they  that  escape  the  sword  shall 
return  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  into  the  land  of  Judah, 
few  in  number ;  and  all  the  remnant  of  Judah,  that  are 
gone  into  the  land  of  Egypt  to  sojourn  there,  shall  know 

29  whose  word  shall  stand,  mine,  or  theirs.  And  this  shall 
be  the  sign  unto  you,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  punish 
you  in  this  place,  that  ye  may  know  that  my  words  shall 

30  surely  stand  against  you  for  evil :  thus  saith  the  Lord  : 
Behold,  I  will  give  Pharaoh  Hophra  king  of  Egypt 
into  the  hand  of  his  enemies,  and  into  the  hand  of  them 
that  seek  his  life ;  as  I  gave  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah  into 
the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon,  his  enemy, 
and  that  sought  his  life. 


29,  30.  According  to  the  statement  of  Herodotus  (ii.  161-163, 
169),  Hophra  or,  as  Herodotus  calls  him,  Apries,  in  consequence 
of  an  unsuccessful  expedition  against  Cyrene,  was  dethroned  by 
Amasis,  who  although  desirous  of  sparing  him,  had  to  give  him 
up  to  the  people,  who  strangled  him.  This  narrative  is  accepted 
by  many  scholars,  but  rejected  by  Wiedemann,  who  is  followed 
by  Cornill.  If  the  story  is  correct,  the  present  prophecy  in  its 
apparent  distinction  of  the  enemies  of  Hophra  from  Nebuchad- 
nezzar agrees  with  history,  so  closely  in  fact  that  several  regard  it 
as  either  composed  or  brought  into  its  present  form  after  the  event 
The  reign  of  Hophra  ended  about  570  b.c.  In  568,  when  Nebu- 
chadnezzar invaded  Egypt,  Amasis  was  on  the  throne.  Hophra's 
death  took  place  in  564. 


JEREMIAH    15.  I.     B  209 

[b]  The  word  that  Jeremiah  the  prophet  spake  unto  45 


xlv.     Rebuke  and  Promise  Addressed  to  Baruch. 

According  to  the  title  this  oracle  dates  from  the  fourth  year  of 
Jchoiakim,  when  the  prophet's  secretary  wrote  the  roll.  Its 
authenticity  was  doubted  by  Reuss  and  Schwally,  but  it  has  been 
accepted  by  all  recent  expositors.  Its  apparently  insignificant 
character  is  enough  to  refute  the  theory  that  it  is  a  work  of 
imagination.  But  several  writers  do  not  accept  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  as  the  date  of  its  origin.  It  contemplates  a  life  of  exile 
for  Baruch  as  impending  or  already  begun.  Trouble  upon  trouble 
had  already  been  his  portion.  In  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
the  prophet  rather  contemplated  the  possibility  that  his  people 
might  repent  and  exile  be  averted.  Its  position  in  the  book  is  also 
thought  to  indicate  a  later  origin.  Duhm  says  its  proper  place 
>vould  have  been  after  xxxvi.  4,  but  it  is  not  probable  that  xxxvi 
included  anything  of  the  kind.  These  arguments,  however,  are  by 
no  means  decisive.  It  is  true  that  Jeremiah  wrote  the  roll  in  the 
hope  that  his  people  might  repent,  but  though  it  was  his  duty 
to  hope  against  hope  and  labour  to  the  last,  he  was  under  no  illusion 
as  to  the  likelihood  of  repentance.  He  expected  the  worst.  And 
the  contents  of  the  roll  were  such  as  to  fill  Baruch  with  the  liveliest 
sorrow  for  the  doom  that  was  hanging  over  the  nation ;  it  was  com- 
posed entirely  of  oracles  of  denunciation  and  disaster,  such  as  ought 
to  have  caused  its  hearers  to  rend  their  clothes,  and  which  actually 
roused  the  king  to  a  fury  that  would  have  been  fatal  not  simply 
to  the  roll  itself,  but  to  author  and  scribe.  And  a  personal  prophecy 
of  this  kind  would  have  been  quite  out  of  place  in  xxxvi.  It 
would  have  ruined  the  progress  of  the  narrative  by  introducing 
an  irrelevant  element,  when  all  attention  was  to  be  concentrated 
on  the  effect  produced  by  the  roll.  Its  position  at  the  close  of 
Baruch's  memoirs  is  to  be  explained  by  the  author's  modesty  rather 
than  by  chronological  considerations.  These  arguments,  then,  do 
not  negative  the  evidence  of  the  title.  It  must  be  owned,  however, 
that  the  title  itself  presents  difficulties.  The  clause  '  when  he 
wrote  these  words'  should  refer  to  a  prophecy  or  narrative  which 
immediately  precedes  ;  hence  it  might  be  argued  that  xlv  really 
succeeded  xliv  in  point  of  time,  since  we  may  not  unreasonably 
suppose  that  its  position  at  the  end  of  the  memoirs  was  due  to 
Baruch  himself.  But  this  simply  means  that  the  data  of  the  title 
are  conflicting,  and  it  is  much  less  violent  to  read  '  the  words  '  than 
to  strike  out  the  date.  So  far  as  the  contents  of  the  chapter  are 
concerned  they  might  suit  a  later  date,  whether  in  the  closing 
years  of  Zedekiah,  as  Kobcrle  thinks,  or  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  as  Giesebrecht,  Duhm,  Erbt,  and  Gillies  suppose. 
Cornill,  who  has  written  by  far  the  most  penetrating  and  sugges- 

II  P 


2IO  JEREMIAH  45.  i.     B 

Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah,  when  he  wrote  these  words  in 
a  book  at  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah,  in  the  fourth  year 

tive  study  of  the  chapter,  holds  fast  to  the  date  in  the  title,  and 
thinks  that  only  thus  does  the  real  significance  of  the  oracle  get 
its  true  appreciation.  He  sels  aside  as  unworthy  the  interpretation 
that  Baruch  was  complaining  over  his  personal  troubles  and  the 
uncertainty  of  earning  a  livelihood.  Rather  it  is  the  writing  of 
the  roll  which  has  filled  him  with  pain.  Is  there  then  no  hope  for 
anything  better  ?  Will  Yahweh  not  repent  once  more  of  the  evil 
He  thinks  of  doing  to  His  people  ?  Truly  a  great  thing  to  ask, 
but  then  is  not  Yahweh  He  who  does  great  things?  It  was  no 
ignoble  feeling  which  prompted  his  complaint,  but  love  to  his  people 
and  belief  in  God's  mercy.  But  he  failed  to  see  that  while  ii 
wa^  possible  for  love  and  mercy  to  achieve  their  end,  God  would 
not  have  denied  them  scope.  For  He  was  the  Creator,  it  was  He 
who  had  planted,  He  who  had  built  up.  Certainly  He  did  not 
destroy  His  own  work  wantonly  or  with  indifference,  but  only  with 
pain  ;  if  He  brings  Himself  to  do  it,  then  no  alternative  remains  to 
be  tried.  Man  can  do  nothing  but  be  silent  in  the  presence  of  so 
reluctant  a  resolve.  The  disaster  which  is  threatened  cannot  be 
averted  from  the  guilty  people,  but  Baruch's  own  life  should  be 
spared.  With  full  sympathy  Jeremiah  entered  into  the  feelings  of 
his  disciple ;  he  too  had  gone  through  the  same  experience,  and 
had  schooled  himself  into  acceptance  of  the  will  of  God.  Cornill 
brings  out  strongly  the  immense  significance  of  the  thought,  here 
for  the  first  time  expressed,  that  the  Creator,  just  because  He  is 
the  Creator,  must  be  filled  with  love  for  His  creation.  Here  it  is 
applied  simply  to  Judah  ;  in  Job  x.  8  ff.  it  is  extended  to  the 
individual  man  ;  in  Jonah  iv.  ii  it  is  expressed  in  all  its  greatness 
and  splendour.  The  interpretation  given  by  Cornill  yields  a 
worthy  sense,  and  the  present  writer  can  do  no  other  than  accept 
it  in  the  main.  He  questions,  however,  whether  the  language, 
and  especially  the  exhortation  not  to  seek  great  things  for  him- 
self, does  not  imply  an  element  of  personal  self-seeking  which 
Cornill  does  not  recognize.  While  he  also  agrees  that  the  date  in 
the  title  is  to  be  preferred,  he  thinks  that  the  oracle  might  still 
bear  the  same  deep  meaning  if  it  dated  from  a  later  period  in 
Baruch's  career. 

xlv.  1-5.  The  word  spoken  to  Baruch  when  he  wrote  the  roll. 
Thou  hast  said.  Sorrow  is  added  to  my  pain,  and  I  find  no  rest. 
I  am  breaking  down  what  I  have  built,  and  plucking  up  what  I 
have  planted.  And  seek  no  great  thing  for  thyself;  I  am  bringing 
evil  on  all  flesh,  but  thy  life  shall  be  preserved. 

xlv.  1.  The  title  creates  difficulties  which  have  been  touched 
upon  in  the  Introduction  to  the  section.     '  These  words '  do  not 


JEREMIAH    15.  2-5-     B  211 

of  Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judab,  saying, 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God   of  Israel    '"^unto  thee,  2 

0  Baruch :  Thou  didst  say,  Woe  is   me  now  !  for  the  3 
Lord  hath  added  sorrow  to   my  pain  ;    ^  I   am  weary 
with  my  groaning,  and  I  find  no  rest.     Thus  shalt  thou  4 
say  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Behold,  that  which 

1  have  built  will  I  break  down,  and  that  which  I  have 
planted  I  will  pluck  up ;  and  this  in  the  whole  land. 
And  seekest  thou  great  things  for  thyself?  seek  them  not :  5 

*  +Or,  coHcenimg        ^  See  Ps.  vi.  6. 

suit  the  memoirs,  for  Baruch  did  not  write  these  at  the  dictation 
of  Jeremiah,  nor  yet  the  roll  written  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  for  that  roll  was  destroyed.  Cornill  thinks  Baruch 
may  have  said,  'when  I  wrote  the  words  of  Jeremiah.' 

3.  Baruch's  thoughts  are  cast  in  a  poetical  form ;  we  may 
suppose  that  he  had  expressed  them  in  writing  and  that  Jeremiah 
had  seen  his  composition.  To  pain  for  the  fate  which  hung  over 
his  people  was  added  anxiety  as  to  his  own  lot. 

4.  Tlius  .  .  .  him.  These  words  do  not  harmonize  with  the  pre- 
ceding, in  which  Baruch  himself,  not  Jeremiah,  is  addressed.  The 
simplest  expedient  is  to  omit  them. 

The  significance  of  Yahweh's  words  is  explained  in  the  Intro- 
duction to  the  chapter.  If  He  destroy  His  own  work  it  can  only 
be  with  pain  and  reluctance,  and  because  no  alternative  is  open  to 
Him.  If  Baruch  is  oppressed  with  sorrow,  what  must  be  Yahweh's 
pain  ? 

and  this  in  the  whole  land.  These  words  are  absent  in  the 
LXX,  and  the  Hebrew  is  strange.  Probably  they  are  a  gloss, 
intended  to  explain  what  it  was  that  Yahweh  was  destroying. 
For  *  land'  it  would  be  better  to  render  'earth.' 

5.  It  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  impression  that  Baruch  is  here 
warned  against  undue  personal  claims,  and  in  this  respect  Cornill's 
otherwise  penetrating  interpretation  seems  scarcely  to  do  justice 
to  the  terms  of  the  passage.  But  some  of  the  suggestions  made  as 
to  the  form  his  claims  took  are  wide  of  the  mark.  There  is  no 
hint  that  he  expected  to  play  a  great  part  in  the  affairs  of  state, 
or  to  become  a  prophet.  His  desires  were  rather  quite  moderate; 
but  in  such  a  time  the  most  ordinary  desires  may  be  excessive.  He 
must  be  satisfied  to  escape  with  bare  life  and  a  wandering  existence. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  in  His  word  to  Baruch,  Yahweh  displays  the 
same  sternness,  the  same  exacting  demand,  the  same  lack  of  sym- 
pathy and  appreciation  as  to  Jeremiah.     Wc  may  say  that  what 

P  2 


212  JEREMIAH  45.  5—46.  i.     BR 

for,  behold,  I  will  bring  evil  upon  all  flesh,  saith  the  Lord: 
but  thy  life  will  I  give  unto  thee  for  a  prey  in  all  places 
whither  thou  goest. 

40      [R]  The  word  of  the  Lord  which  came  to  Jeremiah 
the  prophet  concerning  the  nations. 

Baruch  achieved  by  giving  to  the  world  his  memoiis  of  Jeremiah 
was  a  far  greater  tiling  than  his  most  soaring  ambition  had  ever 
contemplated.  Erbt  has  a  very  ingenious  theory  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  section.  He  thinks  that  it  was  written  after  Baruch  had 
finished  writing  the  memoirs  of  Jeremiah,  and  that  after  so  much 
pain,  Yahweh  still  prepares  new  woes,  a  Babylonian  conquest  for 
the  remnant  in  Egypt.  The  prophet's  da3's  are  wellnigh  done, 
but  a  future  still  lies  before  Baruch,  not  of  rest  but  of  toil  and  con- 
stant movement.  Separation  from  his  beloved  master  is  impending  ; 
for  Jeremiah  is  sendini?  him  to  Babylon,  there  to  continue  his  work 
among  the  exiles.  To  Babylon  he  went  and  published  the  story 
of  his  master's  work.  He  heard  no  more  of  the  prophet,  hence  we 
learn  nothing  of  the  end  of  his  career.  This  theory,  however, 
does  not  give  any  adequate  meaning  to  the  Divine  reply  to  his 
complaint. 

xlvi-li.  Oracles  Against  Foreign  Nations. 
The  prophecies  contained  in  these  chapters  have  in  recent  years 
been  wholly  or  largely  denied  to  Jeremiah.  The  most  thorough 
attack  on  their  authenticity  was  made  by  Schwally  in  Stade's 
Zeitschrift  for  1888.  The  same  conclusion  has  been  reached  by 
Stade,  Wellhausen,  and  Duhm.  Other  scholars  have  recognized 
interpolation,  more  or  less  extensive,  while  contending  for  a  gen- 
uine Jeremianic  nucleus.  A  very  general  agreement  has  been 
reached,  especially  since  Budde's  discussion  in  the  Jahrbiicherfiir 
deutsche  Theologie,  1878,  that  the  Oracle  against  Babylon  (1.  i — li.  58) 
is  not  authentic,  though  Orelli  dissents  from  this  and  Rothstein 
considers  that  even  it  may  contain  some  Jeremianic  matter.  As 
to  xlvi-xlix  opinion  is  greatly  divided.  Even  A.  B.  Davidson  and 
Koberle  consider  that  the  chapters  contain  a  considerable  non- 
Jeremianic  element,  and  critics  like  Kuenen,  Giesebrecht,  and 
Erbt  naturally  adopt,  though  with  considerable  difference  in  detail, 
a  very  similar  position.  Among  recent  writers  Cornill  has  the 
merit  of  giving  the  most  searching  discussion.  He  claims  for 
Jeremiah  a  much  larger  proportion  than  Giesebrecht  does.  The 
question  has  to  be  settled  for  each  oracle,  but  certain  general 
objections  to  the  prophecies  considered  as  a  whole  call  for  exam- 
ination at  this  point. 


JEREMIAH  46.  2.     R  213 

Of  Egypt :  concerning  the  army  of  Pharaoli-neco  king  : 
of  Egypt,  which  was  by  the  river  Euphrates  in  Carchcmish, 

The  Cibjcction  that  Jeremiah  was  not  a  prophet  to  the  nations 
has  been  already  discussed  (vol.  i,  pp.  77,  78),  and  need  not  dttain 
us.  Assuming  that,  like  the  older  prophets  (xxviii.  8),  he  too  was 
commissioned  to  speak  'against  many  countries  and  against  great 
kingdoms,'  we  naturally  anticipate  that  such  prophecies  may  be 
found  in  the  book.  We  cannot  eliminate  them  on  the  baseless 
assumption  that  Jeremiah  was  conscious  of  no  mission  save  to  his 
own  people.  What  then  are  the  positive  arguments  in  disproof  of 
authenticity  ?  Schwally  complains  that  the  conception  of  God  is 
quite  other  than  Jeremiah's  ;  in  these  chapters  He  appears  through- 
out as  the  vengeful  Deity,  who  has  dedicated  the  heathen  to 
unalterable  destruction.  But  the  idea  of  Divine  vengeance  is  not 
strange  to  Jeremiah  (cf.  v.  9,  29)  ;  and  apart  from  this  it  is  not 
really  present  in  these  prophecies  except  in  xlvi.  10  ;  though  the 
idea  of  Divine  judgement  is,  of  course,  present,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  belief  that  Yahweh  stands  behind  the  events  of  history, 
the  calamities  that  fall  on  the  nations  are  assigned  to  His  causation. 
When  Schwally  adds  that  there  is  no  preaching  of  repentance, 
apart  from  which  prophecy  is  unthinkable,  we  remember  Habak- 
kuk  and  Nahum,  and  ask  w^hat  Hebrew  prophet  ever  felt  h'mself 
called  to  preach  repentr.nce  to  the  heathen  ?  Only  in  the  very  late 
Book  of  Jonah  is  there  the  suggestion  of  such  an  idea  ;  but  Jonah 
is  a  representative  of  Israel  as  the  Servant  of  Yahweh  entrusted 
with  a  mission  to  the  Gentile  world.  The  absence  of  explicit 
reference  to  affairs  in  Judah,  which  is  another  objection,  would  be 
amazing  if  the  prophet  had  not  dealt  with  them  over  and  over 
again  ;  as  it  is.  such  an  objection  is  unmeaning.  Nor  is  it  the  case 
that  what  lies  behind  the  prophecies  is  simply  the  antithesis 
between  the  peop'e  of  God  and  the  heathen  as  such,  which  was 
the  creation  of  the  exile  ;  or  that  the  author  knows  nothing  of  the 
concrete  relations  of  the  peoples.  The  literary  dependence  of  the 
prophecies  in  their  present  form  on  post-Jcremianic  writings  is 
not  to  be  denied.  But  this  and  all  the  other  arguments  taken  to- 
gether iv;ovc  nothing  more  than  that  the  prophecies  are  not 
wholly  authentic.  Tliey  do  not  forbid  us  to  recognize  a  substantial 
Jeremianic  nucleus,  which  has  undergone  expansion  at  the  hand 
of  later  editors.  The  question  whether  such  an  authentic  nucleus 
can  be  discovered,  and,  if  so,  what  limits  should  be  set  to  it,  can  be 
answered  only  through  a  detailed  investigation  of  the  oracles 
themselves.  On  their  original  position  in  the  B(  ok  of  Jeremiah 
sec  the  Introduction  to  xxv.  The  order  of  the  prophecies  differs 
in  the  Hebrew  and  the  LXX.  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that 
the  former  should  be  preferred. 


214  JEREMIAH  46.  2.     R 

which  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon  smote  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah. 

xlvi.    The  Overthrow  of  Egypt. 

This  chapter  contains  two  main  divisions :  (a)  2-12,  (b)  13-28. 
The  former  is  dated  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoial<im,  and  its 
occasion  is  said  to  be  the  defeat  of  the  army  of  Nebuchadnezzar  at 
Carchemish.  (On  this  epoch-making  event  and  its  consequences, 
see  vol.  i,  pp.  18-20.)  A  prophecy  on  Egypt,  at  such  a  juncture,  is 
what  would  naturally  be  expected.  Egypt  was  Judah's  suzerain  ; 
Babylon  the  long-announced  foe  out  of  the  north.  In  this  year 
the  prophet  Avas  commissioned  to  give  the  nations  the  cup  of 
Yahweh's  fury  to  drink,  and  the  first  of  the  heathen  powers  to 
drink  was  Egypt  (xxv.  15-19).  The  objections  to  the  authenticity 
are  partly  aesthetic  ;  the  movement  of  the  piece  is  not  straight- 
forward, but  we  pass  to  and  fro  between  the  preparation  for  the 
fight  and  its  issue.  Cornill,  on  the  contrary,  considers  the  descrip- 
tion, when  restored  to  its  original  form,  most  effective.  Literarj' 
dependence  on  post-Jeremianic  passages  cannot  be  proved,  it  may 
in  each  case  lie  on  the  other  side.  Nor  are  the  ideas  such  as 
are  inconsistent  with  Jeremiah's  authorship.  Giesebrecht  rather 
grudgingly  grants  that  there  may  be  a  genuine  nucleus,  '  of  which 
remains  may  be  preserved  e.g.  in  verses  7,  8,  5,  6.'  But  he  seems 
more  inclined  to  regard  the  whole  as  an  early  post-exilic  com- 
position. We  should  probably,  however,  regard  the  whole  as 
substantially  genuine. 

The  second  oracle,  13-28,  is  decisively  rejected  by  Giesebrecht 
on  grounds  which  Cornill  regards  as  so  slight  that  he  does  not 
even  name  them.  The  same  repetition  and  absence  of  clear 
development  of  the  theme,  the  looseness  of  the  connexion,  the 
absurdity  of  the  metaphor  in  18,  the  impossibility  of  attributing 
26  to  Jeremiah,  are  the  main  points  enumerated  by  Giesebrecht. 
Largely  they  are  objections  which  can  be  rightly  estimated  only 
in  a  detailed  study  of  the  passage.  Its  date,  assuming  it  to  be 
substantially  authentic,  is  uncertain.  It  is  quite  possible  that  it 
belongs  to  the  same  period  as  3-12.  But  it  may  date  from  Jere- 
miah's residence  in  Egypt,  when  he  anticipated  an  invasion  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  (xliii.  8-13).  This  date  would  be  cerfain  if,  as 
Cornill  asserts,  17  contained  a  word-play  on  the  name  Hophra 
(see  note). 

xlvi.   I.  Title  to  the  Oracles  concerning  the  Nations. 

2.  Concerning  the  army  of  Pharaoh  smitten  at  Carchemish  h}' 
Nebuchadnezzar. 

3-6.  Let  the  soldiers  make  ready  for  the  battle.  Why  do  they 
turnback?  The3'' are  smitten  and  flee  in  terror.  They  have  fallen 
by  the  Euphrates. 


JEREMIAH  46.3,4,     J  215 

[j]  Order  ye  the  buckler  and  shield,  and  draw  near  to  3 
battle.      Harness  the  horses,  and  get  up,  ye  horsemen,  4 

7-12.  Who  rises  up  like  the  Nile  ?  It  is  Egypt,  boasting  that  it 
will  cover  the  earth.  Horses,  chariots,  warriors,  tribes  go  forth 
to  battle.  But  it  is  Yahweh's  day  of  vengeance  ;  there  is  no 
healing  for  Egypt's  wound.  The  earth  is  full  of  Egypt's  cry  for 
its  fall. 

13.  Title  of  an  Oracle  on  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest  of  Egypt. 

T4-19.  Let  Egypt  prepare  for  the  conflict.  Yahweh  has  over- 
thrown the  strong  one.  The  strangers  exhort  each  other  to  escape 
to  their  own  country.  Call  the  name  of  Pharaoh  a  Crash.  One 
comes  eminent  as  Tabor  among  the  mountains.  Let  the  Egyptians 
prepare  for  exile. 

20-26.  Egypt  is  a  fair  heifer,  stung  by  a  gadfly  ;  her  warriors 
are  like  well-fed  cowardly  calves,  they  have  fled  before  the  enemy. 
Egypt  is  like  a  serpent  in  the  wood  before  an  army  of  wood- 
cutters. Her  dense  forest  shall  be  cut  down,  since  it  cannot  be 
searched  out.  Egypt  is  conquered  by  the  northern  people.  It  will 
be  delivered  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  shall  ultimately 
be  restored  as  of  old. 

27,  28.  Fear  not,  Jacob,  Servant  of  Yahweh,  for  thou  shalt  be 
restored  and  rest  in  thy  land.  I  will  utterly  destroy  the  nations 
of  thy  dispersion,  but  thee  I  will  only  chastise. 

xlvi.  1,  A  title  to  the  whole  group  of  oracles. 

2.  The  only  part  of  the  verse  which  belongs  to  the  original 
oracle  is  the  first  words,  which  are  better  rendered  'On  Egypt ;' 
similarly  in  the  titles  to  some  of  the  other  oracles.  The  rest  of 
the  verse  is  a  note  of  great  historical  value,  since  it  alone  gives  us 
independent  information  as  to  the  site  of  the  battle.  On  Pharaoh 
JNccho  see  vol.  i,  pp.  15-19.  His  reign  lasted  610-594  b.  c. 
Carchemish  is  not  Circesium  (which  lies  at  the  junction  of  the 
Chaboras  and  the  Euphrates),  with  which  it  used  to  be  identified  ; 
but  Gargamish,  as  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  call  it,  now  known  as 
Dschirbas  (other  spellings  are  Dscherabis,  Jerabis,  Jirbas,  Girbas).- 
It  lies  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  north  of  Circesium  and 
a  little  to  the  north  of  the  junction  of  the  Sagur  with  the  Euphrates. 
It  had  been  famous  as  the  capital  of  the  Hittites.  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  crown  prince  at  the  time,  but  succeeded  his  father  Nabopo- 
lassar  a  little  later. 

3.  The  poet,  without  any  preliminary  description,  plunges  us  into 
the  heart  of  the  situation.  It  is  the  eve  of  battle,  and  he  bids  the 
warriors  make  ready  for  the  fray.  'The  buckler'  is  the  small 
rounded  shield,  the  '  shield  '  is  the  long  shield  which  protected  the 
whole  body. 

4.  get  up,  ye  borsemen.    This  is  the  traditional  rendering,  but 


2i6  JEREMIAH  4G.  5-8.     J 

and  stand  forth  with  your  hehnets ;  furbish  the  spears, 
6  put  on  the  coats  of  mail.  Wherefore  have  I  seen  it  ? 
they  are  dismayed  and  are  turned  backward ;  and  their 
mighty  ones  are  beaten  down,  and  are  fled  apace,  and 
look  not  back :  terror  is  on  every  side,  saith  the  Lord. 

6  Let  not  the  swift  flee  away,  nor  the  mighty  man  escape ; 
in  the  north  by  the  river  Euphrates  have  they  stumbled 

7  and  fallen.      ^Who  is  this  that  riseth  up  like  the  Nile, 

8  whose  waters  toss  themselves  like  the  rivers  ?  Egypt 
riseth  up  like  the  Nile,  and  his  waters  toss  themselves 
like  the  rivers:  and  he  saith,  I  will  rise  up,  I  will  cover 

*  Or,  Wlw  is  ihis  like  the  Nile  that  riseth  w/>,  like  the  rivers  whose 
ivatcrs  toss  themselves  ?     Egypt  is  like  the  Nile  that  riseth  up  &c. 

most  recent  commentators  render  '  mount  the  steeds.'  The  com- 
mand *  furbish  the  spears '  comes  in  strangely  as  a  direction  on  the 
eve  of  an  engagement,  and  the  text  has  often  been  suspected. 
The  LXX  may  have  read  '  lift  high  your  spears.'  Cornill  suggests 
*  arm  yourselves  with  spears '  (cf,  2  Sam.  xxiii,  7). 

coats  of  mail.  These  '  may  have  consisted  of  some  thick 
woven  material  covered  with  metal  scales  '  {Enc.  Bib.  606). 

5.  No   sooner  are  the  preparations  complete  and   the  battle 
joined  than  the  army  is  put  to  flight. 

Wherefore  have  1  seen  it  ?  The  Hebrew  is  difficult.  The 
LXX  rightly  omits  the  verb,  *  Wherefore  are  they  dismayed  ? '  &c. 
If  it  is  retained,  it  would  be  better  to  render  'Wherefore  do  I  see 
them  to  be  dismayed  ? ' 

terror  is  on  every  side:  a  characteristic  expression  of 
Jeremiah's  ;  here  very  appropriate  and  effective  :  see  note  on  vi.  25. 
*7.  The  Egyptians  were  smitten  in  the  north,  by  Jeremiah's  foe 
from  the  north,  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates.  And  now,  in  fine 
,  contrast  to  the  Euphrates,  comes  the  Nile.  Isaiah  had  spoken  of 
the  waters  of  the  Euphrates,  strong  and  many,  overflowing  the 
banks  and  sweeping  into  Judah,  threatening  the  very  life  of  the 
Jewish  people  (Isa.  viii.  7,  8).  Jeremiah  speaks  of  the  Nile  rising, 
while  the  waters  of  its  branches  toss  themselves.  The  rising  of 
the  Nile  worked  no  havoc,  but  was  the  condition  of  its  country's 
fertility.  It  therefore  did  not  suggest  military  conquest,  like  the 
flooding  of  the  Euphrates,  and  is  aptly  chosen  as  a  symbol  of 
Egypt's  hollow  military  pretensions. 

8.    and    his  waters    .  .  .  rivers  :  omitted  in  LXX  ;  several 
critics  strike  out  also  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.     The  LXX  also 


JEREMIAH  46.  9,  ic.     J  217 

the  earth  ;  I  will  destroy  the  city  and  the  inhabitants 
thereof.  Go  up,  ye  horses ;  and  rage,  ye  chariots  ;  and  9 
let  the  mighty  men  go  forth  :  Ciish  and  Put,  that  handle 
the  shield ;  and  the  Ludim,  that  handle  and  bend  the 
bow.  For  that  day  is  a  day  of  the  Lord,  the  Lord  '^ 
of  hosts,  a  day  of  vengeance,  that  he  may  avenge  him  of 
his  adversaries :  and  the  sword  shall  devour  and  be  satiate, 
and  shall  drink  its  fill  of  their  blood  :  for  the  Lord,  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  hath  a  sacrifice  in  the  north  country  by 

omits  *  the  city  and,'  to  the  improvement  of  the  sense.  It  may 
have  arfsen  out  of  a  reminiscence  of  xlvii.  2.  If  it  is  retained,  it  is 
best  explained  as  collective,  *  cities,'  rather  than  as  referring  to 
any  cit3'  in  particular. 

9.  This  verse  may  be  a  continuation  of  Pharaoh's  u'ords,  or  it 
may  be  the  prophet  himself  who  incites  the  contingents  of  the 
Egyptian  army  to  the  battle  which  is  to  end  in  such  swift  irretriev- 
able disaster.  The  former  view  seems  to  be  preferable.  The 
king  urges  his  hosts  to  the  battle  to  fulfil  his  proud  boast  in  the 
preceding  verse.  Let  the  horses  prance,  let  the  chariots  rush 
furiously  forward,  let  the  soldiers  advance  to  the  conflict. 

Cush:  i.e.  Ethiopia.  Put  is  probably  Punt,  a  land  on  the  Red 
Sea.  Cush  and  Put  both  occur  as  '  sons  of  Ham  "  in  Gen.  x.  6. 
The  mercenaries  from  these  countries  formed  the  heavy-armed 
soldiers,  and  the  Iiudim  the  archers.  The  Ludim  seem  to  have 
been  a  Libyan  people  on  the  west  of  Egypt ;  perhaps  wc  should 
read  Lubim,  i.  e.  Libyans,  as  in  Nah.  iii.  9,  '  Put  and  Lubim  were 
thy  helpers '  (Stade).  In  any  case  they  are  not  the  Lydians  of 
Asia  Minor.  The  three  peoples  are  mentioned  similarly  in  Ezek. 
XXX.  5. 

handle  and  bend  the  bow.  It  would  be  better  to  read  simply 
'■  bend  the  bow,'  literally  '  tread  the  bow  ; '  '  handle  '  is  a  careless 
repetition  from  the  previous  clause. 

10.  In  this  verse  a  note  of  vengeance  is  struck,  which  is  not 
strange  when  we  consider  that  the  untimely  death  of  Josiah  and  . 
the  captivity  of  Jehoahaz  had  happened  only  a  few  years  earlier  at 
Egypt's  hands.  The  passage  is  very  similar  to  Isa.  xxxiv.  6,  8  ; 
but,  since  Isa.  xxxiv  is  a  late  composition,  our  passage  is  probably 
the  original :  cf.  Zeph.  i.  7,  P2zek.  xxxix.  17-20.  The  sword  is  the 
sword  of  the  enemy,  not  of  Yahweh  as  the  LXX  reads  under  the 
influence  of  Isa.  xxxiv.  6.  Costc  (p.  7)  prefers  the  LXX,  regarding 
the  Hebrew  text  as  '  due  to  dogmatic  alteration,  occasioned  bj' dis- 
like of  such  an  anthropomorphism  as  "  the  sword  of  Ynhvveh  "'  '  (so 
also  xlix.  37,  and  perhaps  xlvii.  6). 


2i8  JEREMIAH  46.  11-15.     JRJ 

11  the  river  Euphrates.  Go  up  into  Gilcad,  and  take  balm, 
O  virgin  daughter  of  Egypt :  in  vain  dost  thou  use  many 

12  medicines;  there  is  no  healing  for  thee.  The  nations 
have  heard  of  thy  shame,  and  the  earth  is  full  of  thy  cry  : 
for  the  mighty  man  hath  stumbled  against  the  mighty, 
they  are  fallen  both  of  them  together. 

13  [R]  The  word  that  the  Lord  spake  to  Jeremiah  the 
prophet,  how  that  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon  should 
come  and  smite  the  land  of  Egypt. 

14  [j]  Declare  ye  in  Egypt,  and  publish  in  IVIigdol,  and 
publish  in  Noph  and  in  Tahpanhes  :  say  ye.  Stand  forth, 
and  prepare  thee  ;  for  the  sword  hath  devoured  round 

15  about  thee.      ^  Why  are  thy  strong  ones  swept  away? 

'^  Or,  according  to  some  ancient  authorities,  IVhy  is  thy  strong  one 
swept  away  ?  he  stood  not  ifc. 

11.  The  wound   of  Egypt    is  incurable:   though   she  go   into 
«  Gilead  to  procure  its  far-famed  mastic  (viii.  22)  ;  though  she  tries 

one  remedy  after  another,  all  are  in  vain  ;  no  physician,  though 
the  reputation  of  her  physicians  was  so  high,  has  compounded 
a  plaister  (xxx.  13)  which  will  heal  her. 

12.  thy  shame.  The  LXX  reads  *  thy  voice,'  which  gives 
a  better  parallelism  ;  the  change  is  trifling. 

the  mighty  man  .  .  .  the  mighty :  cf.  Lev.  xxvi.  37.  In 
the  shameful  panic  described  in  5,  6  the  warriors  tumble  over  each 
other  in  their  blind  flight  from  the  foe. 

14.  For  the  places  named  in  this  verse  see  ii.  t6,  xliv.  i.  It 
would  be  better,  however,  to  adopt  the  shorter  text  of  the  LXX, 
'  Declare  ye  in  Migdol,  and  publish  in  Noph,'  i.e.  in  the  frontier 
town  and  the  capital  of  Lower  Egypt.  The  tenor  of  the  declara- 
tion follows  :  Egypt  is  bidden  stand  forth  to  repel  the  enemy, 
whose  sword  has  already  devoured  the  surrounding  peoples.  For 
'round  about  thee'  the  LXX  seems  to  have  read  *  thy  thicket,' 
which  is  accepted  by  Schwally  and  Cornill.  This  is  supported  by 
the  simile  in  22,  23,  but  it  is  very  questionable  if  it  yields  a 
satisfactory  sense.  It  would  be  necessary  to  render  '  is  devouring,' 
since  if  the  thicket  had  already  been  cut  down  the  day  for  defence 
would  have  gone  by. 

15.  The  Hebrew  reads  the  singular,  except  in  the  word  ren- 
dered '  th}'  strong  ones,'  for  which  the  singular  should  no  doubt 
be  substituted,  with  several  Versions  and  more  than  sixty  Hebrew 


JEREMIAH  4G.  i6, 17.     J  219 

they  stood  not,  because  the  Lord  did   "-  drive  them. 
He  made   many  to  stumble,  yea,  they   fell  one  upon  16 
another  :  and  they  said,  Arise,  and  let  us  go  again  to  our 
own  people,  and  to  the  land  of  our  nativity,  from  the 
oppressing  sword.     They  cried  there,   Pharaoh  king  of  17 
*  fOr,  thrust  them  down 

MSS.  Tlie  text,  however,  needs  a  further  alteration.  The  verb 
rendered  *  swept  away  '  is  really  two  words  written  as  one  ;  the 
LXX  gives  us  the  correct  text,  'Why  is  Apis  fled  ?  Thy  strong 
one  stood  not,  because  the  Lord  did  thrust  him  down.'  Apis 
was  the  sacred  bull,  in  which  Osiris  was  believed  to  be  incarnate. 
The  god  of  Egypt  cannot  stand  before  the  assault  of  the  Baby- 
lonians (cf.  Isa.  xix.  I,  xlvi.  r,  2,  and  x.  4,  if  we  are  to  read  with 
Lagarde,  *  Beltis  bows  down,  Osiris  is  broken ').  '  Thy  strong 
one  '  is  then  a  synonj'm  for  Apis;  the  Hebrew  word  is  often  used 
for  bulls.     In  viii.  16,  xlvii.  3,  it  is  used  of  horses,  so  also  1.  11. 

16.  The  reference  to  a  return  home  shows  that  the  speakers 
are  foreigners  ;  apparently  not  the  mercenaries  but  traders  :  cf. 
Isa.  xiii.  14.  But  this  does  not  suit  the  present  text,  for  a  reference 
to  the  foreigners  should  have  preceded.  Giesebrecht,  with  a  slight 
emendation  {'erlfka  (or  ht'rbah  and  kdshal  for  koshel),  reads  '  Th}' 
mingled  people  have  stumbled  and  fallen,  ar.d  they  said  one  to 
another,  Arise,'  &c.  This  is  supported  by  the  LXX,  accepted  by 
Duhm,  Erbt,  and  Driver,  and  is  probably  correct.  For  '  the  min- 
gled people  '  cf.  1.  37,  Ezek.  xxx.  5,  i  Kings  x.  15,  and  the  note 
on  XXV.  20.  Cornill  is  dissatisfied  with  this,  since  the  insertion  of 
the  foreigners  seems  to  him  unsuitable  here.  He  supposes  that 
Jeremiah  is  still  referring  to  Apis  ;  and, eliminating  the  greater  part 
of  the  verse,  reads  '  He  hath  sorely  stumbled,  yea  fallen,  before 
the  oppressing  sword.' 

17.  A  difficult  verse.  We  should  read,  with  a  different  po'nt- 
ing,  '  Call  j-e  the  name  of  Pharaoh'  (so  LXX).  They  are  to  call 
him  shaon  he'ebir  hammo'cd.  This  name  apparently  contains  a 
play  on  the  king's  name  :  if  so,  the  second  word  must  refer  to 
Hophra,  whose  name  in  Egyptian  is  Uah-ab-ra  :  cf.  for  a  similar 
contemptuous  word-play  on  Egypt  Isa.  xxx.  7.  The  obscurity  of 
the  clause  is  probably  due  to  the  difficulty  of  getting  a  satisfactory 
word-play  on  the  name.  Cornill  argues  that  the  prophcc}-  must 
be  contemporaneous  with  Hophra,  and  if  so,  certainly  authentic. 
This  is  on  the  whole  probable,  though  Duhm  considers  the  verse 
to  be  a  marginal  gloss,  and  Giesebrecht  sa3'S  that  a  later  Rabbi 
could  quite  well  have  perpetrated  a  witticism  of  this  kind.  Even 
Rothstein,  who  regards  the  passage  as  Jcremianic,  thinks  that 
this  sentence  is  quite  prosaic  and  certainly  docs  not  belong  to  the 


220  JEREMIAH  4G.  18-20.     J 

Egypt  is  but  a  noise  ;  he  hath  let  the  appointed  time  pass 

18  by.  As  I  live,  saith  the  King,  whose  name  is  the  Lord 
of  hosts,  surely  like  Tabor  among  the  mountains,  and  like 

19  Carmel  by  the  sea,  so  shall  he  come.  "  O  thou  daughter 
that  dwellest  in  Egypt,  ^^  furnish  thyself  to  go  into  cap- 
tivity :  for  Noph  shall  become  a  desolation,  and  shall  be 

30  burnt  up,  without  inhabitant.     Egypt  is  a  very  fair  heifer ; 

'^  Or,  O  thoti  that  dwellest  with  the  daughter  of  Egypt 
^  Heb.  tnake  thee  vessels  of  captivity. 

original  text,  and  passes  the  same  judgement  on  18.  But  a 
later  writer  would  be  likely  to  know  that  the  king  who  was  reign- 
ing when  Nebuchadnezzar  invaded  Egypt  was  Amasis.  The 
meaning  of  the  name  is  not  clear  ;  '  a  Crash,  who  has  let  the 
appointed  time  pass  by'  is  perhaps  the  best  rendering.  He  has 
let  the  time  go  by  when  he  might  have  secured  himself  against 
this  calamity  ;  or  perhaps  better.  He  has  let  the  time  in  which  the 
Divine  mercy  might  have  been  granted  pass  by. 

18.  As  Tabor  towers  high  over  the  mountains,  and  as  Carmel 
rises  sheer  above  the  sea,  so  the  foe  who  comes  on  Egypt  will 
overtop  other  conquerors.  Tabor  is  not  the  loftiest  mountain'  of 
Palestine,  but  it  makes  the  impression  of  great  height  because  it 
rises  from  the  plain ;  and  similarly  Carmel  by  the  sea,  though  its 
actual  height  is  only  about  600  feet.  The  metaphor  was  perhapssug- 
gested  to  Jeremiah  by  the  flatness  of  Egypt,  which  was  such  a  con- 
trast to  Palestine.  The  conqueror  is  not  named  ;  Nebuchadnezzar 
is  intended.  If  the  passage  is  late,  Schmidt's  suggestion  that  he 
is  Alexander  the  Great  is  plausible. 

19.  O  thou  daug-hter.  The  population  of  Egypt  is  addressed, 
and  bidden  get  ready  the  *  vessels  of  captivity  '  (see  margin\  i.  e. 
the  necessariesfora  journey  such  as  food  and  utensils  (in  Ezek.  xii.  3 
the  same  phrase  is  translated  'prepare  thee  stuff  for  removing'). 
Such  preparations  are  imposed  on  the  inhabitants  by  the  destruc- 
tion of  Memphis,  the  capital. 

20.  In  a  fresh  metaphor  the  poet  describes  the  disaster  of 
Egypt.  She  is  '  a  graceful  heifer '  (for  this  rendering  see  Driver, 
p.  368),  well-nourished  and  finely  proportioned,  but  a  gadfly  has 
come  upon  her,  stinging  her  into  flight.  This,  since  Hitzig,  is  the 
generally  accepted  view,  though  the  rendering  *  gadfly '  is  not 
universally  accepted.  Cornill  corrects  the  text  and  reads  '  a 
herdsman  (boqer)  from  the  north  shall  become  her  master  (b^'dldh).'' 
He  thinks  a  personal  designation  more  suitable  to  the  connexion. 
He  also  transposes  the  List  part  of  21,  *  for  the  day  ,  .  .  visitation,' 


JEREMIAH   10.  21,22.     J  221 

but  ^  destruction  out  of  the  north  is  come,  ^'  it  is  come. 
Also  her  liired  men  in  the  midst  of  her  are  like  calves  of  ai 
tlie  stall ;  for  they  also  are  turned  back,  they  are  fled 
away  together,  they  did  not  stand  :  for  the  day  of  their 
calamity  is  come  upon  them,  the  time  of  their  visitation, 
c  The  sound  thereof  shall  go  like  the  serpent ;  for  they  shall  22 
march  with  an  army,  and  come  against  her  with  axes,  as 

^fOr,  the  gadfly  ^  fOr,  according  to  many  ancient  autho- 

rities, upon  her  <=  fOr?  -^^'^  soivid  is  like  that  of  the  serpent 

as  it  goeth 


to  the  close  of  this  verse,  to  secure  a  better  balance  of  the  two 
similes,  and  because  the  reference  to  visitation  suits  Egypt  herself 
better  than  her  mercenaries. 

21.  The  mercenaries  who  were  hired  to  fight  proved  useless  in 
the  day  of  conflict.  For  they  were  pampered  like  calves  fed  up 
in  the  stalls,  and  were  thus  utterly  unfit  for  the  stern  realities  of 
warfare.  The  mercenaries  here  mentioned  are  not  those  of  9, 
but  the  lonians  and  Carians,  introduced  into  his  service  by  Psam- 
metichus,  and  retained  by  his  successors.  Hophra  did  not  send 
them  on  the  expedition  against  Cyrene  ;  they  failed  to  secure  him 
victory  over  Amasis  (Herodotus  ii.  152  ff.). 

22,  23.  These  verses  are  obscure.  If  we  leave  the  text  as  we 
have  it,  but  adopt  the  rendering  in  the  margin,  23'^  seems  to  mean 
either  that  Egypt's  movement  in  retreat  is  inaudible,like  the  rustle 
of  the  serpent  as  it  glides  through  the  wood,  not  like  the  tramp  of 
a  mighty  host,  or  else  that  Egypt's  moan  after  her  defeat  is  as 
inaudible.  In  either  case  the  point  is  the  weakness  of  Egypt. 
The  former  is  perhaps  the  better.  The  LXX,  however,  instead 
of  '  the  serpent  as  it  goeth.'  reads  *  a  hissing  serpent.'  This  is 
probably  to  be  preferred.  Egypt  is  like  a  serpent  driven  back 
from  its  lair  by  the  advance  of  the  woodmen  ;  it  can  offer  no  more 
resistance  than  an  impotent  hiss  of  defiance.  The  metaphor  is 
all  the  more  appropriate  since  the  serpent  holds  so  conspicuous 
a  place  in  the  royal  insignia  of  Egypt.  Cornill  thinks  that  23" 
should  be  attached  to  22*.  It  is  not  so  suitable  in  its  present 
position,  but  follows  22*  admirably  and  is  equally  in  place  before 
22''.  In  22**,  23*  the  foe  is  described  as  approaching  with  axes, 
and  cutting  down  Egypt  as  a  dense,  impenetrable  forest,  so 
thickly  populated  was  it.  It  is  disputed  whether  the  Babylonians 
actually  used  battle-axes  ;  if  they  did  use  them  this  might  have 
suggested  the  metaphor  to  the  piophct. 


222  JEREMIAH  46.  23-^8.     J^ 

23  hewers  of  wood.  They  shall  cut  down  her  forest,  saith 
the  Lord,  ^  though  it  cannot  be  searched ;  because  they 

24  are  more  than  the  locusts,  and  are  innumerable.  The 
daughter  of  Egypt  shall  be  put  to  shame ;  she  shall  be 

25  delivered  into  the  hand  of  the  people  of  the  north.  The 
Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  saith :  Behold,  I  will 
punish  Anion  of  No,  and  Pharaoh,  and  Egypt,  with  her 
gods,  and  her  kings  ;  even  Pharaoh,  and  them  that  trust 

36  in  him :  and  I  will  deliver  them  into  the  hand  of  those 
that  seek  their  lives,  and  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar 
king  of  Babylon,  and  into  the  hand  of  his  servants  :  and 
afterwards  it  shall  be  inhabited,  as  in  the  days  of  old, 

2"/  saith  the  Lord,  [s]  ^But  fear  not  thou,  O  Jacob  my 
servant,  neither  be  dismayed,  O  Israel :  for,  lo,  I  will  save 
thee  from  afar,  and  thy  seed  from  the  land  of  their  cap- 
tivity ;  and  Jacob  shall  return,  and  shall  be  quiet  and  at 

28  ease,  and  none  shall  make  him  afraid.     Fear  not  thou,  O 

^iOr,/or  **  See  ch.  XXX.  10,  II. 

hewers  :  better  *  gatherers,'  though  a  slight  alteration  would 
give  'hewers,'  which  is  much  more  appropriate. 

They  shall  cut  down.  The  verb  is  better  pointed  as  an  im- 
perative '  Cut  down,'  as  in  vi.  6. 

25.  The  LXX  gives  a  much  shorter  and  better  text.  It  omits 
'The  Lord  ,  .  .  saith,'  also  *and  Pharaoh  .  .  .  her  kings.'  For 
'  Amon  of  No '  the  LXX  reads  '  Amon  in  No.'  Amon  was  tiie 
god  of  No,  i.  e.  of  the  Egyptian  Thebes  :  cf.  Nah.  iii.  8,  Ezek.  xxx. 
14-16. 

them  that  trust  in  him.  Jeremiah  has  specially  in  mind 
the  Jews  whose  inveterate  trust  in  Egypt  is  once  more  doomed  to 
disappointment. 

26.  This  verse  is  absent  in  the  LXX,  and  regarded  by  several  as 
a  later  insertion.  Cornill  treats  it  as  in  the  main  genuine.  He  says 
that  26*  must  be  earlier  than  Nebuchadnezzar's  expedition,  since 
matters  turned  out  otherwise  than  as  predicted,  and  the  closing 
promise  to  Egypt  is  supported  by  Ezek.  xxix.  13,  14,  where  after 
forty  years'  desolation  Egypt  is  to  be  repeopled. 

Z*7,  28.  These  verses  are  also  found  in  xxx.  10,  11,  and  are 
discussed  there. 


JEREMIAH  dG.  1:8—47.  1.     SR  223 

Jacob  my  servant,  suilh  llic  Lord  ;  for  I  am  with  thee : 
for  I  will  make  a  full  end  of  ail  the  nations  whither  I  have 
driven  thee,  but  I  will  not  make  a  full  end  of  thee ;  but 
I  will  correct  thee  with  judgement,  and  will  in  no  wise 
^  leave  thee  unpunished. 

[r]  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to  Jeremiah  the  47 
°-  Or,  Jioid  thee  guiltless 

xlvii.  Oracle  on  the  Philistines, 
The  authenticity  of  this  oracle  has  been  denied  by  those  who 
reject  all  the  oracles  on  foreign  nations,  also  by  Gillies  who  thinks 
nothing  is  authentic  in  this  section  except  parts  of  xlvi.  Those 
who  are  prepared  to  recognize  a  Jeremianic  nucleus  in  this  section 
of  the  book  usually  take  the  present  oracle  to  be  by  Jeremiah. 
And  there  is  no  substantial  objection  to  this.  Moreover,  as  Cornill 
points  out,  this  oracle  seems  to  be  quite  independent  of  other 
prophecies  on  the  Philistines,  the  points  of  contact  with  them  being 
too  slight  to  justify  any  theory  of  dependence.  Had  it  been 
a  late  composition  it  would  probably  have  borrowed  not  a  little 
from  its  predecessors.  The  date  must  be  determined  primarily 
from  the  prophecy  itself;  it  belongs  to  the  same  period  as  most 
of  the  scries,  i.e.  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (xlvi.  2),  and  the 
army  which  is  to  come  on  Phihstia  from  the  north  is  that  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  the  victor  at  Carchemish.  The  title,  it  is  true, 
suggests  a  different  occasion,  a  conquest  of  Gaza  b}'  a  king  of 
Eg3-pt.  According  to  Herodotus  (H.  159),  Pharaoh  Nccho  after 
the  battle  at  Magdolos,  i.  e.  Megiddo,  captured  Kadytis,  which  since 
Hitzig's  Dissertation  on  the  subject  (1829)  has  been  generally 
identified  with  Gaza.  And  it  is  in  fact  probable  that  this  is 
intended  in  i,  for  that  he  'smote  Gaza'  on  his  retreat  from 
Carchemish  is  highly  improbable  ;  and  we  have  no  evidence  to 
support  the  theory  that  Pharaoh  Hophra  conquered  Gaza  on  his 
expedition  against  Phoenicia  (Herod.  II.  161).  But  if  the  title 
refers  to  the  capture  of  Gaza  in  608  b.  c.  we  must  ascribe  the 
chronological  notice  to  an  editor,  who  took  the  mention  of  Gaza 
in  5  as  referring  to  that  event.  This  is  supported  by  the  fact  that 
it  is  missing  in  the  LXX,  which  rcaJs  simply,  'On  the  Philistines.' 
Duhm  assigns  it  to  the  author  of  xlvi,  and  therefore  at  the  earliest 
to  the  second  half  of  the  second  century  b.  c.  Schmidt  dates  it  in 
the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  'though  the  editor  may  have 
thought  of  the  conquest  of  Gaza  (defended  by  Demetrius)  by 
Ptolemy  in  312  '  (Eiic.  Bib.  2391).  Erbt  regards  6,  7  as  certainly 
authentic,  2  may  or  may  not  be,  3-5  he  takes  to  be  editorial. 


224  JEREMIAH  47.  2-4.     R  J 

prophet  concerning  the  Philistines,  before  that  Pharaoh 
smote  Gaza. 

2  [Jj  Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Behold,  waters  rise  up  out 
of  the  north,  and  shall  become  an  overflowing  stream,  and 
shall  overflow  the  land  and  all  that  is  therein,  the  city 
and  them  that  dwell  therein  :  and  the  men  shall  cry,  and 

3  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  shall  howl.  At  the  noise  of 
the  stamping  of  the  hoofs  of  his  strong  ones,  at  the  rushing 
of  his  chariots,  at  the  rumbling  of  his  wheels,  the  fathers 
look  not  back  to  their  children  for  feebleness  of  hands  ; 

4  because  of  the  day  that  cometh  to  spoil  all  the  Philistines, 


xlvii.  I.  Title  and  date. 

2-7.  A  flood  rises  out  of  the  north  and  will  overwhelm  the  land. 
The  rush  of  horses  and  chariots  causes  the  fathers  for  weak- 
ness to  forget  their  children,  since  PhiHstia  and  Phoenicia  are 
spoiled.  The  cities  of  PhiUstia  mourn.  How  long,  sword  of 
Yahweh,  ere  thou  be  quiet  ?  Return  to  thy  scabbard,  and  be  still. 
How  can  it  be  quiet,  seeing  Yahweh  has  appointed  its  mission  ? 

xlvii.  1.  See  the  Introduction  to  the  chapter. 

2.  Cf.  Isa.  viii.  7,8.  The  waters,  i.  e.  the  invading  army,  come 
from  the  north  ;  the  Babylonians  under  Nebuchadnezzar  are 
intended.  During  the  summer  many  of  the  water-courses  of 
Palestine  are  dry,  but  in  the  rainy  season  they  quickly  fill  with 
raging  torrents,  v^rhich  overflow  their  banks. 

and  the  men  .  .  .  liowl :  struck  out  as  an  insertion  by 
Cornill  and  Rothstein.  It  is  criticized  on  metrical  and  stylistic 
grounds,  and  as  introducing  an  eschatological  element,  foreign  to 
the  passage. 

3.  Such  is  the  terror  inspired  by  the  wild  rush  of  the  foe's  steeds 
and  war-chariots,  that  even  the  fathers  are  unnerved  and  leave 
their  children  behind  them  in  their  panic-stricken  flight.  Giese- 
brecht,  on  metrical  grounds,  regards  '  At  the  noise  .  .  .  wheels  '  as 
an  insertion.  The  description  would  be  impoverished  by  the 
omission.  Cornill  cures  the  metrical  irregularity  by  omitting  '  at 
the  rushing  of  his  chariots.' 

4.  The  text  is  again  uncertain.  If  it  is  correct,  the  R.V,  gives 
the  probable  sense  :  the  Philistines,  the  sole  remaining  help  of  the 
Phoenicians,  are  cut  off".  That  they  really  sustained  a  relation  of 
such  importance  to  Tyre  and  Sidon  is  improbable.  The  word 
rendered  '  that  remaineth  '  means  properly  '  a  survivor,'  one  who- 
escapes  from  disaster,  and  this  does  not  suit  *  to  cut  off; '  besides 


JEREMIAH  47.  =.     J  225 

to  cut  off  from  Tyro  and  Zidon  every  helper  that  remain- 
eth  :  for  the  Lord  will  spoil  the  Philistines,  the  remnant 
of  the  ^  isle  of  Caphtor.     Baldness  is  come  upon  Gaza ;  5 
''Or,  sea  coast 


a  survivor  is  not  well  qualified  to  act  the  part  of  a  helper.  Cornill 
reads  *  and  to  cut  ofT  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  the  whole  remnant  of 
their  strength.'  This  had  been  given  by  Duhm  as  the  original  of 
the  LXX,  and  is  to  be  preferred  to  his  own  emendation.  The 
incidental  and  unexpected  mention  of  the  Phoenicians  seems  to 
the  present  writer  a  suspicious  feature.  This  would  be  somewhat 
mitigated,  though  by  no  means  removed,  if  with  Duhm  we  con- 
tinued '  for  Yahweh  will  spoil  the  whole  remnant  of  the  isles.' 
The  LXX  supports  this.  Cornill  and  Giesebrecht  keep  the  Hebrew 
text,  but  regard  the  clause  as  a  gloss,  a  judgement  Rothstein 
extends  to  the  whole  verse.  Caphtor  is  probably  Crete,  from  which 
the  Philistines  originally  came.  Caphtor  is  named  as  their 
original  home  in  Amos  ix.  7,  Deut.  ii.  23  (in  the  latter  passage  they 
are  described  as  Caphtorim)  ;  the  identification  of  Caphtor  with 
Crete  is  supported  by  the  name  Cherethites  given  to  the  Philis- 
tines (I  Sam.  XXX.  14,  Ezek.  xxv.  16,  Zeph.  ii.  5). 

5.  For  the  mourning  customs  here  mentioned  see  note  on  xvi. 
6.  Gaza  is  mentioned  first  of  the  Philistine  towns,  as  in  Zeph. 
ii.  4,  where  the  order  is  geographical,  proceeding  from  south  to 
north  :  Gaza,  Ashkelon,  Ashdod,  Ekron.  It  was  a  very  impor- 
tant city,  since  it  stood  at  the  junction  of  the  caravan  road  from 
Arabia  and  that  from  Egypt.  It  has  still  a  considerable  popula- 
tion. Cornill  corrects  Ashkelon  into  Ashdod,  It  is  true  that  the 
omission  of  Ashdod  is  surprising,  and  that  Ashkelon  is  mentioned 
in  7  (but  see  notes  on  6,  7).  The  two  names  begin  similarly,  but 
the  substitution  of  one  for  the  other  is  precarious.  It  would  be 
better,  with  Rothstein,  to  insert  it  before  Ashkelon  (but  see  below), 
and  suppose  that  it  has  fallen  out  through  the  similarity  of  the  two 
words.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  *  the  remnant  of  their  valley  '  is 
incorrect,  since  it  is  unsuitable  ;  '  valley  '  is  not  a  fitting  designation 
of  the  PhiHstine  plain,  and  we  expect  a  proper  name.  This  is  given 
by  the  LXX  '  the  remnant  of  the  Anakim '  (a  difference  of  one 
consonant).  The  Anakim  were  a  race  of  giants  (Num.  xiii.  22, 
28,  33  :  cf.  Gen.  vi.  4  ;  Deut.  i.  28,  ii.  lo,  ix.  2  ;  Joshua  xi.  21,  22, 
xiv.  12-15,  XV.  13,  14)  ;  they  are  connected  with  Hebron,  but  also 
according  to  Joshua  xi.  22  with  Philistia.  This  emendation  is 
accepted  by  most  modern  scholars.  Adopting  the  suggestion  that 
Ashdod  should  be  inserted  in  the  text,  it  would  be  better,  since 
no  Anakim  were  left  in  Ashkelon,  but  only  in  Gaza,  Gath,  and 
Ashdod  (Joshua   xi.  22),  to  insert  it  after  Ashkelon  rather  than 

II  Q 


226  JEREMIAH  47.  6-48.  i.     J 

Ashkelon  is  brought  to  nought,  the  remnant  of  their 

6  valley :  how  long  wilt  thou  cut  thyself?  O  thou  sword  of 
the  Lord,  how  long  will  it  be  ere  thou  be  quiet  ?  put  up 

7  thyself  into  thy  scabbard;  rest,  and  be  still.  How  canst 
thou  be  quiet,  seeing  the  Lord  hath  given  »thee  a 
charge?  against  Ashkelon,  and  against  the  sea  shore, 
there  hath  he  appointed  it. 

8  Of  Moab.     Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of 

«*  Heb.  it. 

before  it.  The  verse  would  then  read  *  Baldness  is  come  upon 
Gaza  ;  Ashkelon  is  brought  to  nought ;  Ashdod,  remnant  of  the 
Anakim,  how  long  wilt  thou  cut  thyself? '  Cornill  reads  '  remnant 
of  Ekron,'  which  had  been  previously  suggested  by  Krochmal. 
In  some  ways  this  is  preferable,  but  it  is  a  more  difficult  emendation 
and  has  no  attestation. 

cut  thyself.  There  may  be  a  play  in  the  Hebrew  verb 
iithgodddt  on  the  name  of  Gath.  But  this  is  not  very  probable. 
Gath  is  omitted  in  Zeph.  ii.  4,  and  had  perhaps  been  destroyed. 

6,  7.  These  verses  are  separated  from  the  preceding  by  some 
scholars,  partly  on  metrical  grounds.  Giesebrecht  treats  them  as 
an  obvious  addition,  on  account  of  *  the  sword  of  Yahweh :'  cf.  xlvi. 
10.  But  if  this  is  objectionable  we  might  simply  read  *  the  sword.' 
There  is  no  convincing  reason  for  detaching  the  verses  from  their 
context.  Verse  6  is  apparently  the  cry  of  the  Philistines  ;  7  the 
answer  of  the  prophet.  For  *  How  canst  thou  '  we  should  read 
with  the  Versions  *  How  can  it,'  and  of  course  with  the  margin, 
'given  it  a  charge.'  *The  sea  shore'  is  the  Philistine  coasts 
the  Phoenician  coast  may  perhaps  be  included. 

xlviii.  Oracle  on  Moab. 
This  section  arouses  suspicion  both  by  its  length  in  contrast  to 
the  other  oracles  in  xlvi-xlix,  and  its  use  of  earlier  prophecies, 
especially  Isa.  xv,  xvi.  Movers  and  Hitzig  both  assumed  that  the 
chapter  contained  a  good  deal  of  secondary  matter,  the  former 
attributing  twenty  verses  to  the  supplementer,  Hitzig  twenty- 
three.  They  agreed  largely,  though  not  completely,  as  to  the  verses 
whichshould  be  treated  as  secondary.  Graf  confessed  that  Jeremiah 
would  not  lose  if  such  interpolation  were  admitted,  but  he  con- 
sidered that  the  reasons  alleged  for  excision  were  insufficient. 
Kuenen  assigned  sixteen  verses  to  the  editor.  All  three  agreed 
in  regarding  29-38  (Hitzig  38''),  43-46  as  editorial.     Giesebrecht, 


JEREMIAH  48.  i.     J  227 

Israel :  Woe  unto  Nebo !  for  it  is  laid  waste ;  Kiriathaim 


after  a  detailed  examination,  left  a  few  verses  which  might  be 
genuine,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  they  were  in  harmony  with 
the  rest  of  the  chapter  he  considered  it  to  be  arbitrary  to  separate 
them  from  their  context  and  treated  the  whole  as  spurious.  Cornill 
and  Rothstein  agree  that  there  is  a  genuine  Jeremianic  nucleus, 
though  they  reconstruct  it  very  differently.  Schmidt  brings  the 
chapter  down  to  the  reign  of  John  Hyrcanus ;  and  Duhm,  on  the 
ground  that  it  draws  upon  very  late  passages,  says  that  it  can 
hardly  be  older  than  the  close  of  the  second  century  b.  c.  Even 
Koberle  omits  it.  The  question  can  be  dealt  with  to  profit  only 
in  the  detailed  discussion  of  the  chapter.  But  one  general  remark 
may  be  made  here.  Admitting  that  Jeremiah  uttered  oracles  on 
the  foreign  nations,  it  is  fairly  certain  that  Moab  would  be  included. 
If  then  we  find  an  oracle  on  Moab  in  this  section,  there  is  a  pre- 
sumption that  it  contains  at  least  a  genuine  nucleus,  which  may 
have  suffered  expansion  ;  it  is  not  antecedently  probable  that  it 
should  be  entirely  spurious.  At  the  same  time,  in  view  of 
the  length  and  diffuseness  of  the  oracle,  the  prosaic  character  of 
some  of  its  parts,  the  extensive  borrowing  from  earlier  writers, 
the  animosity  which  seems  at  a  later  period  to  have  been  felt  for 
Moab  (Isa,  xxv.  10-12),  there  is  a  strong  presumption  that  the 
original  oracle,  if  such  can  be  found,  has  been  much  expanded. 

The  chapter  is  remarkable  for  the  large  number  of  place-names 
contained  in  it,  a  feature  that  it  has  in  common  with  the  oracle  on 
Moab  in  Isa,  xv,  xvi,  from  which  it  has  borrowed  so  extensively. 
The  sites  of  some  are  unknown,  and  of  some  more  than  one  iden- 
tification has  been  proposed,  in  yet  other  cases  the  text  is 
suspicious. 

xlviii.  i-io.  Yahweh  announces  the  overthrow  of  Moab  and  its 
cities  ;  let  the  inhabitants  save  themselves  by  fiight.  Chemosh  and 
his  people  shall  go  into  exile,  and  the  land  become  a  desolation. 
Cursed  be  he  that  doeth  this  work  of  Yahweh  negligently. 

ir-19.  Moab  has  been  left  undisturbed  from  his  youth,  and  his 
character  has  not  been  disciplined  by  unsettlement ;  now  he  will 
be  driven  out  of  his  land,  and  his  trust  in  Chemosh  will  be  put  to 
shame.  His  warriors  are  slain,  and  the  wail  is  raised  over  him  : 
The  strong  staff  is  broken  ;  Dibon's  glory  is  humbled  ;  Aroer  asks 
the  fugitives  for  tidings. 

20-28.  Moab  is  spoiled,  judgement  has  come  on  all  his  cities. 
Moab  has  vaunted  himself  against  Yahweh,  and  shall  be  made  a 
derision,  as  he  had  held  Israel  in  derision.  Let  the  inhabitants 
take  refuge  in  the  rocks. 

29-39.  We  have  heard  of  Moab's  pride.  I  will  wail  for  the 
ruin  of  its  vineyards.  The  whole  land  utters  its  cry.  The  wor- 
Q   2 


228  JEREMIAH  48.   2.     J 

is  put  to  shame,  it  is  taken :  ^^  Misgab  is  put  to  shame 
2  and  ^  broken  down.  The  praise  of  Moab  is  no  more ;  in 
Heshbon  they  have  devised  evil  against  her,  Come,  and 
let  us  cut  her  off  from  being  a  nation.  Thou  also,  O 
Madmen,  shalt  be  brought  to  silence ;  the  sword  shall 

*  fOr,  the  high  fort  ^  fOr,  dismayed 

shippers  are  cut  off.  I  am  sore  grieved  for  Moab  ;  its  inhabitants 
are  all  in  mourning,  for  Moab  is  broken,  a  derision  to  all  around 
him. 

40-47.  The  conqueror  swoops  on  Moab  like  a  griffon,  and 
destroys  it  for  its  arrogance  against  Yahvveh  ;  none  shall  escape 
death  or  exile.  Yet  Moab's  fortune  shall  be  reversed  in  the 
latter  days. 

xlviii.  1.  Nebo  is  not  Mount  Nebo,  but  a  hill-town,  perhaps  on 
or  near  the  mountain.    It  is  mentioned  in  Num.  xxxii,  3,  38,  Isa.  xv. 

'  2,  and  on  the  Moabite  Stone.  Kiriathaim  is  probably  to  be 
identified  with  Kureyat,  which  lies  ten  miles  to  the  north  of  the 
River  Arnon,  and  six  to  the  north  of  Dibon,  ten  to  the  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  four  to  the  south-west  of  Jebel  Atarus. 

Misg-ab  .  .  .  dismayed.  Misgab  is  mentioned  nowhere  else, 
and  is  perhaps  to  be  rendered  '  the  high  fort,'  as  in  Isa.  xxv.  12, 
in  which  case  Kir-heres  (31,  36)  may  be  intended.  Duhm  thinks 
we  should  substitute  Moab  ;  Giesebrecht  suggests  Ar-Moab ; 
Cheyne  (Enc.  Bib.  3153)  omits  '  it  is  taken  .  ,  .  shame  and'  as  due 
to  dittography.  Rothstein  reaches  the  same  result  by  a  different 
route.  The  repetition  of  '  is  put  to  shame  '  is  probably  due  to  an 
error,  and  the  Hebrew  at  the  close  of  the  verse  is  strange. 

2.  Heshbon,  now  Hesban,  was  a  famous  city  of  Moab,  about 

'  four  miles  to  the  north-east  of  Mount  Nebo,  twenty-five  to  the  north 
of  the  Arnon,  and  sixteen  east  of  the  Jordan.  It  was  the  city  of 
Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites,  who  had  taken  all  the  territory  of 
Moab  down  to  the  Arnon  (Num.  xxi.  26)  and  then  lost  it  to  the 
Hebrews  ;  at  a  later  time  the  Moabites  regained  possession  of  it, 
as  we  gather  from  Isa.  xv.  2,  xvi.  8,  9.  The  verb  rendered  '■  de- 
vised'contains  a  play  on  Heshbon,  similarly  with  Madmen  and 
'  brought  to  silence.'  Madmen,  however,  is  otherwise  unknown, 
and  we  should  probably  read,  with  LXX,  Syr.,  and  Vulg.,  ^  Thou  also 
shalt  be  utterly  brought  to  silence.'  Cheyne  reads  Nimrim  {Enc. 
Bib.  2892,  3147).  Since  Heshbon  was  a  city  of  Moab,  some  think 
the  statement  in  the  text  that  they  plan  evil  against  Moab  in 
Heshbon  is  meaningless,  and  emend  the  text.  Giesebrecht's  is 
perhaps  the  best  correction,  'Against  Heshbon  they  have  devised 
evil.'     But  the  present  text  is  satisfactory  :  the  invaders,  entering 


JEREMIAH  48.  3-6.     JSJ  229 

pursue  thee.  The  sound  of  a  cry  from  Horonaim,  spoil-  3 
ing  and  great  destruction!  [S]  Moab  is  destroyed;  her  little  4 
ones  have  caused  a  cry  to  be  heard.  "•  For  by  the  ascent  5 
of  Luhith  with  continual  weeping  shall  they  go  up  ;  for 
in  the  going  down  of  Horonaim  they  have  heard  the  dis- 
tress of  the  cry  of  destruction.  [  J]  Flee,  save  your  lives,  and  6 
*  See  Isa.  xv.  5. 

Moab  from  the  north,  occupy  Heshbon  and  plan  the  continuance 
of  their  campaign. 

3.  The  position  of  Horonaim  is  uncertain.  Cheyne  places  it  ^ 
'  near  the  south  border  of  Moab,  on  one  of  the  roads  leading  down 
from  the  Moabite  plateau  to  the  Jordan  valley'  {Enc.  Bib.  21 13), 
and  a  similar  view  is  taken  by  several  scholars,  Cornill  adopts 
the  identification,  but  thinks  that  a  place  more  to  the  north  is 
needed,  which  bears  the  brunt  of  the  invasion  from  the  north  ;  he 
reads  '  from  Abarim  '  as  in  xxii.  20, '  cry  from  Abarim  '  (see  note). 
On  G.  A.  Smith's  map  of  Palestine  Horonaim  is  placed  (with  a 
query)  about  one  and  a  half  miles  from  the  north-east  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  If  this  identification  were  correct,  Cornill's  objection 
would  be  met. 

4.  her  little  ones  .  .  .  heard.    We  should  read,  with  the  LXX 
and  a  few  Hebrew  MSS.,  *  they  make  a  cry  to  be  heard  unto 
Zoar :'  cf.  Isa.  xv.  5.     Zoar  lay  at  the  south-east  extremity  of  the     " 
Dead  Sea,  the  cry  of  the  Moabites  thus  rings  from  north  to  south 

of  the  land.  Possibly,  however,  for  Moab  we  should  read  Ar  of 
Moab  (Isa.  xv.  i),  a  city  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Arnon,  since  in 
the  list  of  Moabite  towns  the  mention  of  Moab  itself  is  sur- 
prising. 

5.  This  verse  is  largely  taken  from  Isa.  xv.  5,  which  had  already 
influenced  4.  Both  verses  are  probably  non-Jcremianic.  The 
ascent  of  Luhith  is  said  to  lie  between  Rabbath-Moab  and  Zoar; 
it  was  apparently  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Horonaim  (see  3).  It 
is  identified  by  some  with  Sarfa,  north  of  the  Wady  Kerak.  Its 
mention  in  a  Nabataean  inscription  found  in  Moab  is  doubtful. 
Cheyne  reads  here  'the  ascent  of  Eglaim.'  Omit  '  continual'  and 
'  the  distress  of.' 

6.  This  exhortation  to  the  Moabites  to  save  themselves  by  flight 
is  probably  corrupt  in  the  latter  part.  On  the  word  rendered 
'heath  '  see  note  on  xvii.  6  ;  if  a  tree  is  intended  here  we  should 
probably  render  '  dwarf  juniper,'  and  explain  the  metaphor  as 
indicating  the  starved  and  destitute  condition  of  the  fugitives. 
But  the  expression  is  undeniably  strange",  and  since  the  translation 
'destitute'   is   unsatisfactory,  and   '  Aroer,'  which  the  v/ord  also 


230  JEREMIAH  48.  7-9-     JS 

7  be  like  ^  the  heath  in  the  wilderness.  For,  because  thou 
hast  trusted  in  thy  works  and  in  thy  treasures,  thou  also 
shalt  be  taken :   and  Chemosh  shall  go  forth  into  cap- 

8  tivity,  his  priests  and  his  princes  together.  [S]  And  the 
spoiler  shall  come  upon  every  city,  and  no  city  shall 
escape ;  the  valley  also  shall  perish,  and  ^  the  plain  shall  be 

9  destroyed  ;  as  the  Lord  hath  spoken.  Give  wings  unto 
Moab,  c  that  she  may  fly  and  get  her  away  :  and  her  cities 
shall  become  a  desolation,  without  any  to  dwell  therein. 

^  See  ch.  xvii.  6.  *  See  Joshua  xiii.  9,  17,  21. 

•^  Or,  for  she  must  fly :  and  her  cities  tfc. 

means,  is  not  in  the  wilderness,  several  scholars  suspect  the  text. 
The  LXX  reads  Hhe  wild  ass'  {'drod),  as  in  Job  xxxix.  5  ;  the 
word  is  probably  a  loan-word  from  Aramaic,  and  the  sense  is  not 
unsatisfactory,  the  wild  ass  being  very  shy  and  difficult  to 
capture.  Cornill  accepts  this,  but  thinks  the  verb  is  corrupt  and 
several  objections  may  be  urged  against  it,  Duhm  thinks  on 
account  of  xvii.  6  that  the  noun  is  correct,  but  slightly  altering  the 
verb  gets  the  sense  'and  preserve  it  (i.e.  your  life)  like  the  dwarf 
juniper  in  the  wilderness.'  This  is  recommended  by  the  fact  that 
it  retains  the  play  on  Aroer  the  Moabite  city  (19). 

7.  thy  works  .  .  .  treasures.  If  the  text  is  correct,  '  works ' 
may  mean  the  deeds  of  Moab,  or  the  things  she  has  made,  or,  as 
the  word  sometimes  means,  her  idols.  But  the  LXX  reads  one 
noun  only  and  renders  *  strongholds,'  which  should  be  accepted 
(see  41),  either  in  lieu  of  both  nouns,  or  of  the  former  only. 

Chemosh:  the  national  god  of  Moab,  often  mentioned  as  such 
4  in  t!ie  O.T.  and  on  the  Moabite  Stone.  For  his  deportation  into 
exile  cf.  Isa.  xlvi.  i,  2.  A  victory  over  a  people  was  a  victory 
over  its  god.  For  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  cf.  Amos  i.  15, 
*  their  king '  being  taken  apparently  to  mean  the  god  of  Ammon, 
i.  e.  Milcom :  cf.  xlix.  3. 

8-10.  Cornill  treats  these  verses  as  non-Jeremianic  ;  Rothstein 
retains  g^  '  and  her  cities  .  .  .  therein  '  for  the  prophet.  A  senti- 
ment like  that  in  10  (cf.  Judges  v.  23)  cannot  well  be  attributed 
to  Jeremiah,  the  Hebrew  of  8  is  unusual,  and  the  meaning  of  9* 
is  very  uncertain. 

8.  the  valley  is  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  as  it  opens  out  near 
'    the  Dead  Sea,  while  the  plain  is  the  table-land  of  Moab  on  which 

its  cities  for  the  most  part  lay. 

9.  The  R.V.  probably  gives  the  general  sense  of  the  first 
clause,  though  the  rendering  *  wings  '  is  justified   only   by  later 


JEREMIAH  48.  IO-I3.     SJ  231 

Cursed  be  he  that  doeth  the  work  of  the  Lord  ^  negH-  10 
gently,  and  cursed  be  he  that  keepeth  back  his  sword 
from  blood.     [  J]  Moab  hath  been  at  ease  from  his  youth,  1 1 
and  he  hath  settled  on  his  lees,  and  hath  not  been  emp- 
tied from  vessel  to  vessel,  neither  hath  he  gone  into 
captivity  :  therefore  his  taste  remaineth  in  him,  and  his 
scent  is  not  changed.     Therefore,  behold,  the  days  come,  12 
saith  the  Lord,  that  I   will  send  unto  him  them  that 
^  pour  off,  and  they  shall  ^  pour  him  off ;  and  they  shall 
empty  his  vessels,  and  break  their  ^  bottles   in  pieces. 
And  Moab  shall  be  ashamed  of  Chemosh,  as  the  house  13 

'^  Or,  deceitfully  ^  fHeb.  tilt  (a  vessel).  «=  '\Qx^  jars 

usage.  We  should  render,  witli  Driver,  '  Give  wings  unto  Moab, 
for  she  would  fain  fly  av^ay:'  cf.  28.  It  seems  to  be  spoken  in 
mockery. 

10.  This  bloodthirsty  verse  is  surely  not  Jeremiah's.     It  was       ' 
Hildebrand's  favourite  quotation. 

11.  The  metaphor  is  well  worthy  of  Jeremiah.     Moab  had  led 
a  much  more  settled  life  than  Israel  ;    it  had,  of  course,  suffered 
from  invasion  and  foreign  dominion,  but  not  from  exile.     It  had     » 
been  like  wine  suflfered  to  remain  on  the  lees,  and  not  poured  from 
vessel  to  vessel.     And  the  effect  of  this  had  been  that  the  quality 

of  the  lees  was  more  and  more  communicated  to  the  wine.  If 
the  wine  was  good  it  was  thus  improved  (cf.  Isa.  xxv.  6),  but  if 
inferior  it  deteriorated  (cf.  Zeph.  i.  12).  Moab  had  suffered  by  its 
freedom  from  the  discipline  of  removal,  its  character  had  not  been 
enriched  by  new  experience,  it  had  become  more  and  more 
obstinately  settled  in  its  native  characteristics,  its  'taste'  and 
*  scent,'  learning  nothing,  forgetting  nothing. 

12.  This  long-continued  freedom  from  disturbance  is  at  last  to 
end.  Yahweh  'will  send  unto  him  tilters,  and  they  shall  tilt  him,' 
empty  the  wine  from  the  vessels  and  break  the  jars  in  pieces.  In 
otlier  words,  he  is  to  be  thrown  into  exile.  Since  Jeremiah 
expected  the  catastrophe  in  the  immediate  future,  we  should 
probably  omit  the  opening  words  of  the  verse  which  relegate  it  to 
an  indefinite  future. 

13.  Then  Moab's  trust  in  Chemosh  will  experience  a  bitter  dis- 
illusion, as  Israel  had  vainly  trusted  in  Beth-el  (cf.  Amos  v.  5).    At     , 
Beth-el  there  was  the  golden  bull,  the  symbol  of  Yahweh  ;  and 
this,  or  perhaps  the  pillar  of  Jacob,  is  here  intended  as  the  object 

of  Israel's  trust.     That  the  writer  should  refer  to  Beth-el  rather 


232  JEREMIAH  48.  14-18.     J 

14  of  Israel  was  ashamed  of  Beth-el  their  confidence.  How 
say  ye,  We  are  mighty  men,  and  valiant  men  for  the  war  ? 

15  Moab  is  laid  waste,  and  ^  they  are  gone  up  into  her  cities, 
and  his  chosen  young  men  are  gone  down  to  the  slaughter, 

16  saith  the  King,  whose  name  is  the  Lord  of  hosts.  The 
calamity  of  Moab  is  near  to  come,  and  his  affliction  hast- 

17  eth  fast.  All  ye  that  are  round  about  him,  bemoan  him, 
and  all  ye  that  know  his  name ;  say.  How  is  the  strong 

18  b staff  broken,  the  beautiful  rod!  O  thou  daughter  that 
c  dwellest  in  Dibon,  come  down  from  thy  glory,  and  sit  in 

*  Or,  her  cities  are  gone  up  in  smoke  ^  Or,  sceptre 

^  Or,  art  seated 

than  Jerusalem,  suggests  that  the  overthrow  of  the  latter  had  not 
yet  occurred,  a  noteworthy  proof  that  the  chapter  contains  a  pre- 
exilic  element. 

ashamed  of:  i.  e.  disappointed  in,  see  on  ii.  26  and  cf.  ii.  36, 
xii.  13,  a  very  clear  case  of  the  meaning,  xiv.  3. 

14.  Cf.  viii.  8,  Isa.  xix.  11. 

15.  This  is  a  difficult  verse,  the  Hebrew  is  strange  ;  the  LXX 
omits  a  good  deal,  and  differs  in  the  text  of  what  it  retains.  It 
would  perhaps  be  simplest  to  read  much  as  in  18,  '  The  spoiler  of 
Moab  is  come  up  against  him,  and  his,'  &c.,  though  several  other 
emendations  have  been  suggested.  The  verse  may  perhaps  be 
editorial. 

16.  Cf.  Isa,  xiii.  22,  Deut.  xxxii.  35. 

17.  The  neighbouring  peoples  are  summoned  to  raise  the  lament 
over  Moab's  downfall.  For  the  words  of  the  lament,  introduced 
with  the  characteristic  '  How  '  (Isa.  i.  21  ;  Lam.  i.  i,  ii.  i,  iv.  i), 
cf.  Isa.  xiv.  5,  6. 

18.  Cf.  xiii.  18,  Isa.  xlvii.  i.  Dibon  (now  Diban)  was  four 
miles  north  of  the  Arnon,  three  north  of  Aroer,  and  thirteen  east  of 

^  the  Dead  Sea.  It  was  situated  on  two  hills,  and  from  that  proud 
eminence  is  bidden  to  come  down  (cf  Matt.  xi.  23).  It  was  at 
Dibon  that  the  Moabite  Stone  was  discovered  in  1868  ;  Mesha, 
whose  victories  over  Israel  it  recounts,  dwelt  there. 

sit  in  thirst.  This  expression  has  no  parallel  :  the  English 
suggests  a  sense  that  the  Hebrew  can  hardly  bear.  The  explana- 
tion '  sit  on  the  thirsty  ground,'  which  could  be  gained  by  alteration 
of  the  pointing,  is  also  improbable ;  and  the  text  is  apparently 
corrupt  :  the  LXX  read  differently.  The  sense  expected  is  *  in  the 
dust '  or  '  on  the  ground  ; '  the  latter  is  nearer  the  Hebrew,  but 


JEREMIAH  48.  19,  20.     JS  2ZZ 

thirst ;  for  the  spoiler  of  Moab  is  come  up  against  thee, 
he  hath  destroyed  thy  strong  holds.  O  ^  inhabitant  of  19 
Aroer,  stand  by  the  way,  and  espy :  ask  him  that  fleeth, 
and  her  that  escapeth  ;  say,  What  hath  been  done  ? 
Moab  is  put  to  shame  ;  for  it  is  ^  broken  down  :  howl  and  20 
cry  ;  [s]  tell  ye  it  in  Arnon,  that  Moab  is  laid  waste. 
*  Heb.  inliabitress.  ^  fO^,  dismayed 

CorniU's  '  in  filth  '  is  nearer  still.  Another  suggestion  is  *  in  the 
mire,'  which  is  favoured  by  the  LXX.  Isa.  xxv.  10,  11  may 
perhaps  be  compared. 

19.  Aroer.  Three  cities  of  this  name  are  mentioned  in  the 
O.T.  The  city  intended  here  is  the  Moabite  Aroer  (now  'Ara'ir), 
about  half  a  mile  north  of  the  Arnon,  three  or  four  miles  south- 
south-west  of  Dibon,  though  very  much  lower,  and  eleven  east  of 
the  Dead  Sea.  Thus  it  lay  between  Dibon  and  the  Arnon,  so  that 
its  inhabitants  could  question  the  fugitives  as  they  escaped  to  *  the 
fords  of  Arnon'  (Isa.  xvi.  2). 

20-24.  The  answer  to  the  question  of  19  seems  to  be  given  in 
the  first  part  of  20.  "With  the  second  part  of  this  verse  the  Qina 
rhythm  is  abandoned,  and  in  21-24  we  have  a  prosaic  catalogue 
of  cities  which  can  hardly  belong  to  the  original  poem.  Accord- 
ingly we  must  regard  20*^-24  as  a  late  insertion.  The  Arnon  is 
probably  the  river  of  that  name  ;  it  would  be  better  to  render  '  by  • 
the  Arnon.'  Holon  and  Beth-gamul  are  mentioned  nowhere  else. 
Dibon,  Beth-diblathaim,  Beth-meon,  Kerioth,  Bozrah,  Jahzah  are 
mentioned  on  the  Moabite  Stone.  Beth-diblathaim  is  not  named 
elsewhere  in  the  O.T.,  its  identification  with  Almon-diblathaim 
(Num.  xxxiii,  46)  is  dubious.  The  name  suggests  that  it  was  rich 
in  figs.  Beth-meon  is  the  same  as  Baal-meon  (Num.  xxxii.  38, 
Ezek.  xxv.  9),  and  Beth-baal-meon  (Joshua  xiii.  17  and  the 
Moabite  Stone).  It  is  the  modern  Ma'in,  sixteen  and  a  half  miles 
north  of  Anion,  nine  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  nine  south-west  of 
Heshbon.  Kerioth  (Amos  ii.  2")  is  identified  by  some  with  Ar 
Moab,  by  others  with  Kir  of  Moab,  but  these  identifications  are 
very  uncertain.  Bozrah  is  obviously  not  the  Edomite  city  (xlix. 
13.  Isa.  Ixiii.  i),  but  should  be  identified  with  Bezer  (Deut,  iv.  43  ; 
Joshua  XX.  8,  xxi.  36).  It  is  perhaps  to  be  identified  with  Kusrel 
Besheir,  which  lies  about  two  miles  south-west  of  Dibon  and  two 
north  of  Aroer.  Jahzah  is  the  scene  of  the  defeat  of  Sihon  (Num. 
xxi.  23,  24).  It  is  also  called  Jahaz.  Eusebius  locates  it  between 
Medeba  and  Dibon.  Mephaath  is  elsewhere  associated  with  Jahaz 
(Joshua  xiii.  iB,  xxi.  37  ;  i  Chron.  vi.  79')  :  presumably  they  were 
near  together.     See  above  on  the  plain  (8),  Dibon  (18),  Nebo  (i), 


234  JEREMIAH  48.  21-28.     SJSJ 

2  1  And  judgement  is  come  upon  ^  the  plain  country  ;  upon 
2  2  Holon,  and  upon  Jahzah,  and  upon  Mephaath  ;  and  upon 

23  Dibon,  and  upon  Nebo,  and  upon  Beth-diblathaim  ;  and 
upon  Kiriathaim,  and  upon  Beth-gamul,  and  upon  Beth- 

24  meon ;  and  upon  Kerioth,  and  upon  Bozrah,  and  upon 

25  all  the  cities  of  the  land  of  Moab,  far  or  near,  [j]  The 
horn  of  Moab  is  cut  off,  and  his  arm  is  broken,  saith  the 

26  Lord.  [S]  Make  ye  him  drunken ;  for  he  magnified 
himself  against  the  Lord  :  and  Moab  shall  wallow  in  his 

27  vomit,  and  he  also  shall  be  in  derision.  For  was  not 
Israel  a  derision  unto  thee  ?  was  he  found  among  thieves  ? 
for  as  often  as  thou  si^eakest  of  him,  thou  waggest  the 

28  head,  [j]  O  ye  inhabitants  of  Moab,  leave  the  cities,  and 
dwell  in  the  rock  ;  and  be  like  the  dove  that  maketh  her 

*  See  ver.  8. 

Kiriathaim  (i).     For  the  last  clause  of  24  cf.  xxv.  26,  also  at  the 
close  of  a  catalogue. 

25.  This  verse  connects  well  with  20*.  The  'horn'  (Ps.  Ixxv. 
10)  and  *  arm  '  are  metaphors  for  might. 

26,  2*7.  With  these  verses  the  metre  is  again  abandoned.  The 
figure  of  drunkenness  comes  from  xxv.  15-29,  and  the  sickening 
realism  of  26^  in  the  Hebrew  text  is  suggested  by  xxv.  27,  which 
seems  to  be  an  editorial  insertion  (see  note  on  xxv.  27-29).  We 
should  probably  regard  these  verses  as  a  later  interpolation.  As  in 
Isa.  xxv.  10,  II,  Moab  is  depicted  in  a  situation  at  once  disgusting 
and  ridiculous.  The  LXX,  however,  reads  'And  Moab  has 
clapped  his  hands.'  This  gives  an  excellent  sense  :  Moab  has 
clapped  his  hands  in  derision  of  Israel,  he  shall  himself  become 
an  object  of  derision.  The  Hebrew  verb  rendered  *  wallow'  (for 
which  '  splash  '  would  be  better)  does  not  bear  this  meaning  else- 
where, and  this  supports  the  LXX.  We  should  have  to  assume 
that  the  Hebrew  text  had  been  corrupted  under  the  influence  of 
xxv.  27,  and  it  is  not  quite  easy  to  believe  this.  For  the  second 
clause  of  26  cf.  42. 

found  among'  thieves  ?  Was  Israel  discovered  in  the  company 

of  thieves,  caught  stealing,  that  Moab  mocked  at  him  ?    Cf.  ii,  14, 

26.     Wagging  the  head  was  a  gesture  of  derision  :  cf.  Ps.  Ixiv.  8, 

Mark  xv.  29. 

28.  The  metre  is  here  resumed,  and  the  verse  connects  well 


JEREMIAH  48.  29-32.     JS  235 

nest  in  the  sides  of  the  hole's  mouth,     [s]  ^We  have  29 
heard  of  the  pride  of  Moab,  that  he  is  very  proud ;  his 
loftiness,   and   his   pride,   and   his   arrogancy,   and  the 
haughtiness  of  his  heart.     I  know  his  wrath,  saith  the  30 
Lord,  that  it  is  nought;   his  boastings   have  wrought 
nothing.     ^  Therefore  will  I  howl  for  Moab ;  yea,  I  will  31 
cry  out  for  all  Moab :  for  the  men  of  Kir-heres  shall  they 
mourn.     With  more  than  the  weeping  of  Jazer  will  I  weep  32 

*  See  Isa.  xvi.  6.  ^  See  Isa.  xv.  5,  xvi.  7,  11. 

with  25.  It  is  a  fine  verse,  admirably  suited  to  the  situation,  since 
the  country  offers  many  refuges  to  fugitives  in  the  rocks,  and 
countless  doves  build  their  nests  in  them.  The  closing  words  of 
the  verse,  however,  arc  very  strange.  Giesebrecht  suggests  '  in 
the  holes  of  the  rocks  of  the  precipices  ; '  Rothstein  (in  Kittel)  '  in 
the  clefts '  simply.     Cornill  gives  the  passage  up. 

29-38.  This  section  is  almost  entirely  derived  from  Isa.  xv,  xvi, 
and  is  not  an  improvement  on  the  original.  Some  Jereraianic 
elements  are  perhaps  embedded  in  it,  but  the  passage  as  a  whole 
is  late. 

29,  30.  A  very  diffuse  expansion  of  Isa.  xvi.  6.  For  the  pride 
of  Moab  of.  Isa.  xxv.  11,  Zeph.  ii.  8-10,  and  perhaps  the  Moabite 
Stone  ;  but,  as  Cheyne  only  too  truly  says, '  all  national  monuments 
of  this  sort  have  a  tendency  to  exaggeration  '  {Pulpit  Commentary, 
ad  loc).  Render  30,  */  know,  saith  Yalnveh,  his  wrath;  and 
his  boastings  are  untruth  ;  they  do  untruth '   (Driver). 

31.  Derived  from  Isa.  xvi.  7,  but  with  alterations.  The  earlier 
passage  gives  a  logical  connexion  ;  Moab's  pride  will  lead  to 
Moab's  wailing  over  his  misfortune.  Here  by  the  substitution  of 
the  first  person,  obviously  under  the  influence  of  Isa.  xvi.  9,  the 
prophet's  grief  over  Moab's  fate  is  strangely  represented  as  due 

to  Moab's  pride.  'The  men  of  Kir-heres'  is  probably  a  textual  * 
error  for  'the  raisin-cakes  of  Kir-heres'  rather  than  a  deliberate 
alteration.  On  the  raisin-cakes  see  Whitehouse's  notes  on  Isa. 
xvi.  7  ;  they  were  made  of  pressed  grapes  and  fine  meal  ;  and  had 
a  place  in  religious  festivities  (cf.  Hos.  iii.  i\  Kir-heres  (in  Isa. 
xvi.  7  Kir-hareseth)  is  probably  identical  with  Kir  of  Moab  (Isa. 
XV.  i),  the  modern  Kerak,  eight  miles  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and 
about  seventeen  miles  south  of  the  Arnon.  It  was  a  very  strong 
fortress,  near  the  south  frontier  of  Moab. 

32.  From  Isa.  xvi.  8,  9,  but  with  change  of  order,  and  textual 
variations.  At  the  beginning  of  the  verse  we  should  probably  read 
simply  '  With  the  weeping  '  (so  Isa.  xvi.  9)  or  '  As  with  the  weep- 


236  JEREMIAH  48.  33,  34.     SJS 

for  theC; ''  O  vine  of  Sibmah  :  thy  branches  passed  over 
the  sea,  they  reached  even  to  the  sea  of  Jazer :  upon  thy 
summer  fruits  and  upon  thy  vintage  the  spoiler  is  fallen. 

33  [  J]  ^^  And  gladness  and  joy  is  taken  away,  from  the  fruitful 
field  and  from  the  land  of  Moab ;  [S]  and  I  have  caused 
wine  to  cease  from  the  winepresses  :  none  shall  tread  with 

34  shouting ;  the  shouting  shall  be  no  shouting.     ^  From  the 

*  See  Isa.  xvi.  8,  9.        '^  See  Isa.  xvi.  10.       *=  See  Isa.  xv.  4,  &c. 

ing'  (so  LXX).  Jazer  is  commonly  identified  with  Sar,  ten  miles 
north  of  Heshbon  and  seven  west  of  Rabbath  Ammon.  Sibmah  is 
two  and  a  half  miles  west-north-west  of  Heshbon.  Its  vines  must 
••  have  been  famed  for  their  choice  quality  and  fruitfulness.  The  poet 
expresses  this  under  the  metaphor  of  a  gigantic  vine  which  sent 
out  its  branches  south-west  over  or  to  the  Dead  Sea  and  north  to 
Jazer  (read  '  even  to  Jazer ; '  '  the  sea  of  is  a  mistaken  insertion 
from  the  previous  clause,  there  is  no  lake  at  Jazer).  Isaiah  gives  an 
eastern  direction  also,  '  they  wandered  into  the  wilderness.'  For 
'the  spoiler'  read  'the  battle  shout'  as  in  Isa.  xvi.  9  (see  note  on 
next  verse). 

33.  From  Isa.  xvi.  10,  but  mutilated  in  the  latter  part.  Cornill 
thinks  that  the  words  '  And  gladness  and  joy  is  taken  away  from 
the  land  of  Moab'  belong  to  the  original  poem  of  Jeremiah;  he 
quotes  as  parallels  vii.  34,  xvi.  9,  xxv.  10.  For  'none  shall  tread 
with  shouting '  we  should  read,  with  Isa.  xvi.  10, '  no  treader  shall 
tread.'  The  Hebrew  is  very  harsh,  and  '  shouting '  is  due  to  the 
following  clause.  The  word  rendered  '  shouting '  might  be  used 
for  the  vintage  shout,  or  the  battle  shout.  The  writer  means  that 
there  will  be  a  shouting  in  the  vineyards,  but  it  will  not  be  the 
vintage  shout  as  the  grapes  are  trodden  in  the  winepress,  but  the 
shout  of  the  soldiery  as  they  trample  the  vinej^ards  down. 

34.  From  Isa.  xv.  4-6,  much  abbreviated.  The  opening  of  the 
verse  gives  no  sense.  Giesebrecht  with  a  slight  alteration  reads, 
'  How  criest  thou,  Heshbon  and  Elealeh  ; '  Duhm,  '  Crying  are 
Heshbon  and  Elealeh.'  For  Heshbon  see  2,  for  Jahaz  see  21,  for 
Zoar  and  Horonaim  see  3.  Elealeh  was  two  miles  north-west  of 
Heshbon.  Eglath-shelishiyah  seems  to  mean  the  third  Eglath  ;  the 
name  would  distinguish  it  from  two  other  Eglaths  in  the  neighbour- 
hood (of.  the  three  Strettons  which  are  close  together,  Little 
Stretton,  Church  Stretton,  and  All  Stretton).  Its  site  is  unknown, 
presumably  it  was  near  Horonaim.  Duhm  supplies  the  want  of  a  verb 
by  correcting  'from  Zoar  even  unto,'  and  reading  '  Horonaim  and 
Eglath-Shelishiyah  call  out.'  The  'waters  of  Nimrim  '  are  not  iden- 
tified with  certainty.     They  were  probably  in  the  south  of  Moab, 


JEREMIAH   48.  35-3S.     SJS  237 

cry  of  Heshbon  even  unto  Elealeh,  even  unto  Jahaz  have 
they  uttered  their  voice,  from  Zoar  even  unto  Horonaim, 
^  to  Eglath-shelishiyah  :    for  the  waters  of  Nimrim  also 
shall  become  ^Mesolate.     [j]  Moreover  I  will  cause  to  35 
cease  in  Moab,  saith  the  Lord,  him  that  offereth  in  the 
high  place,  and  him  that  burneth  incense  to  his  gods. 
[S]  Therefore  mine  heart  soundeth  for  Moab  like  pipes,  36 
and  mine  heart  soundeth  like  pipes  for  the  men  of  Kir- 
heres :  therefore  the  abundance  that  he  hath  gotten  is 
perished.     For  every   head   is   bald,  and   every   beard  37 
clipped  :  upon  all  the  hands  are  cuttings,  and  upon  the 
loins  sackcloth.     On  all  the  housetops  of  Moab  and  in  38 
the  streets  thereof  there  is  lamentation  every  where  : 
«  Or,  as  ait  heifer  of  three  years  old  ^  Heb.  desolations. 

perhaps  the  Wady  Numeirah  which  runs  into  the  Dead  Sea  near 
its  southern  extremity.  The  desolation  is  due  to  the  stopping  of 
the  sources,  as  we  read  in  2  Kings  iii.  25  with  reference  to  the 
campaign  of  Israel,  Judah,  and  Edom  against  Moab,  'they  stopped 
all  the  wells  of  water.' 

35.  This  verse  has  points  of  contact  with  Isa.  xv.  2,  xvi.  12, 
but  seems  not  to  be  based  upon  them,  and  Cornill  considers  it, 
apart  from  '  saith  the  Lord,'  to  be  a  part  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy. 
The  Hebrew  does  not  bear  the  rendering  'him  that  offereth  in  ;' 
probably  this  is  the  sense  intended  :  a  shght  change  yields  this 
sense. 

36.  From  Isa.  xvi.  11,  xv.  7*.  The  sympathetic  tone  is  note- 
worthy, though  for  the  first  '  mine  heart '  the  LXX  reads  '  the  harp 
of  Moab.'  'Pipes'  is  substituted  for  'harp;'  they  were  used  at 
funerals  (Matt.  ix.  23\  The  verb  is  less  suitable  here.  The  latter 
part  of  the  verse  is  difficult,  since  *  therefore '  is  inappropriate  ; 
the  A.V.  renders  'because,'  but  this  is  rather  questionable. 

37.  For  'baldness'  and  'gashes'  as  signs  of  mourning  see  xvi. 
6,  xlvii.  5.  The  passage  is  based  on  Isa.  xv.  2,  3.  We  learn  only 
from  it  that  cuttings  were  made  in  the  hands.  For  '  the  lions  '  we 
should  read  'all  lions,'  with  LXX  and  Vulgate. 

38^  The  former  part  of  the  verse  is  derived  from  Isa.  xv.  3. 
The  latter  part,  however,  is  independent  of  the  oracle  in  Isaiah, 
and  is  regarded  by  Cornill  as  part  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy,  since  it 
is  with  slight  excision  metrically  correct,  and  the  metaphor  is  gen- 
uinel}'  Jeremianic  (xxii.  28  :  see  note).  It  is  dubious  whether  this 
latter  feature  favours  the  authenticity. 


238  JEREMIAH  48.  39-45-     JSSJS 

[JS]  for  I  have  broken  Moab  like  a  vessel  wherein  is  no 

39  pleasure,  saith  the  Lord.  How  is  it  broken  down  !  ^  how 
do  they  howl !  how  hath  Moab  turned  the  back  with 
shame  !  so  shall  Moab  become  a  derision  and  a  dismaying 

40  to  all  that  are  round  about  him.  [S]  For  thus  saith  the 
Lord  :  Behold,  he  shall  fly  as  an  eagle,  and  shall  spread 

41  out  his  wings  against  Moab.  ^  Kerioth  is  taken,  and  the 
strong  holds  are  surprised,  and  the  heart  of  the  mighty 
men  of  Moab  at  that  day  shall  be  as  the  heart  of  a  woman 

42  in  her  pangs.  And  Moab  shall  be  destroyed  from  being 
a  people,  because  he  hath  magnified  himself  against  the 

43  Lord.     °  Fear,  and  the  pit,  and  the  snare,  are  upon  thee, 

44  O  inhabitant  of  Moab,  saith  the  Lord.  He  that  fleeth 
from  the  fear  shall  fall  into  the  pit ;  and  he  that  getteth 
up  out  of  the  pit  shall  be  taken  in  the  snare :  [j]  for 
I  will  bring  upon  her,  even  upon  Moab,  the  year  of  their 

45  visitation,  saith  the  Lord,     [s]  f^They  that  fled  stand 

*  Or,  howl  ye!     ^  fOr,  The  cities  are  taken    °  See  Isa.  xxiv.  17, 18. 
**  Or,  Fleeing  because  of  the  force  they  stand  under 

39.  Here  again  Cornill  claims  for  Jeremiah  the  latter  part  of 
the  verse. 

40,  41.  For  these  verses  the  LXX  gives  simply  *  For  thus  saith 
the  Lord  :  Kerioth  is  taken,  and  the  strong  holds  are  surprised.' 
The  rest  of  the  verses  has  been  inserted  from  xlix,  22,  with  the 
necessary  alteration  of  the  proper  names.  Probably  we  should 
render  '■  the  cities'  instead  of  '  Kerioth,'  on  account  of  the  parallel- 
ism ;  if  the  word  is  a  proper  noun  cf.  24.  The  eagle  symbolizes 
the  conqueror. 

42.  Cf.  2,  26. 

43,  44*  occur  also  in  Isa.  xxiv.  17,  18*  with  slight  differences, 
and  a  general  reference  to  the  earth  rather  than  the  specific  refer- 
ence to  Moab.  Our  passage  is  probably  the  later,  Cf.  Lam.  iii.  47, 
Amos  V.  18-20.  The  Hebrew  for  '  Fear,  and  the  pit,  and  the  snare ' 
is  pahad  wdpahath  wdpdh ;  the  assonances  cannot  be  reproduced  in 
English.  For  44^  cf.  xi.  23'',  xxiii.  12.  Cornill  assigns  it  to  the 
original  poems. 

45-47  are  absent  in  the  LXX,  which  proceeds  from  44  to  the 
vision  of  the  wine-cup,  i.e.  to  xxv.  15  in  the  Hebrew.  Verses  45, 
46  are  taken,  except  the  beginning  of  45,  from  Num.  xxi.  28,  29, 


JEREMIAH  48.46—49.  I.     SJ  239 

without  strength  under  the  shadow  of  Heshbon  :  ^  for 
a  fire  is  gone  forth  out  of  Heshbon,  and  a  flame  from  the 
midst  of  Sihon,  and  hath  devoured  the  corner  of  Moab, 
and  the  crown  of  the  head  of  the  tumultuous  ones.  Woe  4^> 
unto  thee,  O  Moab  !  the  people  of  Chemosh  is  undone  : 
for  thy  sons  are  taken  away  captive,  and  thy  daughters 
into  captivity.  Yet  will  I  ^  bring  again"  the  captivity  of  47 
^[oab  in  the  latter  days,  saith  the  Lord.  Thus  far  is  the 
judgement  of  Moab. 

[j]  Of  the  children  of  Amnion.     Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  49 

*  Or,  btti     See  Num.  xxi.  28,  29.  ^  Or,  reiiirn  to 

xxiv.  17.  The  opening  words  of  45  are  far  from  clear.  That  the 
fugitives  should  shelter  under  the  walls  of  Heshbon  is  strange, 
since  they  would  rather  be  fleeing  south.  That  Heshbon  belonged 
to  Ammon  is  not  probable,  in  spite  of  xlix.  3  (see  note) ;  so  that 
the  fugitives  are  not  represented  as  taking  refuge  at  a  foreign  city. 
Instead  of  '  the  midst  of  Sihon  '  we  should  read,  with  trivial  alter-* 
ation,  'from  the  house  of  Sihon;'  Num.  xxi.  28  reads  *  city  of 
Sihon,'  i.e.  Heshbon.  Sihon  took  it  from  the  Moabites,  the  Hebrews 
took  it  from  him,  now  the  Moabites  had  recovered  it.  The  text  in 
the  latter  part  of  45  is  better  than  in  Num.  xxiv.  17. 

4?.  Cornill  regards  the  promise  of  ultimate  restoration  as  Jere- 
mianic.  The  closing  words  are  an  editorial  note  indicating  the 
close  of  the  oracle.  Rothstein  thinks  the  writer  means  that  at  the 
time  of  writing  the  judgement  of  Moab  still  continued  •  the  restor- 
ation belonged  to  the  future. 

xlix.  1-6.  Oracle  on  Ammon. 
An  oracle  on  Ammon  is  quite  to  be  expected  among  Jeremiah's 
prophecies  on  the  nations,  since  like  Moab  and  Edom  it  was  akin 
to  Israel  and  lived  on  its  borders.  The  authenticity  of  the  present 
prophecy  is,  however,  decidedly  rejected  not  only  by  those  who 
believe  all  the  oracles  on  the  nations  to  be  late,  butby  Giesebrecht. 
He  urges  that  the  people  which  is  to  invade  Ammon  remains  quite 
obscure  ;  the  idea  that  Israel  will  take  Ammon's  land  while  it  is  • 
in  exile  contradicts  the  representation  in  xxv  that  Israel  is  in 
banishment  at  the  same  time;  and  that  Gilead  should  again  fall  to 
Ammon  seems  a  strange  withdrawal  of  the  previous  threats  and 
promises.  But  as  to  the  first  of  these,  Giesebrecht  admits 
a  genuine  element  in  the  following  oracle  on  Edom,  though  the 
foe  remains  just  as  obscure.     The  second  objection  is  very  weighty, 


240  JEREMIAH  49.  2,  3.     JSJ 

Hath  Israel  no  sons  ?  hath  he  no  heir  ?  why  then  doth 
^  Malcam  ^*  possess  Gad,  and  his' people  dwell  in  the  cities 

2  thereof?  Therefore,  behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the 
Lord,  that  I  will  cause  an  alarm  of  war  to  be  heard 
against  Rabbah  of  the  children  of  Ammon ;  and  it  shall 
become  a  desolate  ^heap,  and  her  daughters  shall  be 
burned  with  fire :  [s]  then  shall  Israel  ^  possess  them  that 

3  did  ^  possess  him,  saith  the  Lord.    [  J]  Howl,  O  Heshbon, 

*  Or,  their  king        ^  Or,  inheut  ^  See  ch.  xxx.  i8. 

but  may  be  satisfied  by  the  surrender  of  that  element  in  the  oracle, 
and  the  same  answer  may  be  made  to  the  third. 

After  the  deportation  of  Gad  with  others  of  the  northern  tribes 
in  734  B.  c,  the  Ammonites  who  dwelt  on  the  east  of  Gad's 
territory  probably  availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  annex 
the  fertile  land.     Amos  i.  13-15  should  be  compared. 

xlix.  1-6.  Has  Israel  no  sons,  that  Milcom's  people  dwell  in 
Gad's  cities  ?  Behold,  Rabbah  shall  be  made  desolate  and  her 
daughter  cities  ;  then  Israel  will  enter  again  on  possession.  Let 
the  Ammonites  lament,  Milcom  shall  go  into  captivity.  Why  glory 
in  thy  valley,  rebel  daughter,  expecting  no  foe?  Panic  shall  seize 
thee,  and  every  one  be  driven  out.  But  afterward  Ammon  shall 
be  restored. 

zliz.  1.  The  oracle  opens  with  a  question  quite  in  Jeremiah's 
manner  (cf.  ii.  14  and  often).  Is  it  because  Israel  has  no  children 
to  possess  it,  that  Ammon  has  appropriated  the  territory  of  Gad  ? 
No,  even  if  Gad  were  extirpated,  there  were  other  tribes  of  Israel 
to  claim  the  rights  of  next-of-kin.  Malcam  should  probably  here 
and  in  3  be  pointed  Milcom  (so  LXX,  Syriac,  and  Vulgate),  who 
was  god  of  the  Ammonites,  as  Chemosh  of  the  Moabites. 

2.  Kabbah  was  the  chief  city  of  Ammon  ;  it  lay  about  thirteen 
miles  north-east  of  Heshbon.  '  Her  daughters  '  are,  of  course,  the 
smaller  cities. 

then  shall  Israel  .  .  .  the  IiOBB.  This  clause  recalls  Zeph. 
ii.  9;  but,  apart  from  the  vindictiveness  of  it  (cf.  Isa.  xiv.  2),  it 
raises  the  difficulty  touched  on  already,  that  since  Israel  was  to  go 
into  exile  at  the  same  time  as  Ammon,  it  would  not  be  in  a  position 
to  resume  possession  of  its  former  territory.  The  clause  should 
probably  be  omitted,  as  by  Cornill. 

3.  This  verse  is  difficult.  Even  if  the  existence  of  an  otherwise 
unknown  Ammonite  city  Ai  were  granted,  the  mention  of  Hesh- 
bon would  be  strange,  since  this  was  a  Moabite  city,  though  close 
on   the   border   of  Ammon.     Graf  supposed   that   Ai  should  be 


JEREMIAH  49.  ^,5.     J  241 

for  Ai  is  spoiled ;  cry,  ye  daughters  of  Rabbah,  gird  you 
with  sackcloth  :  lament,  and  run  to  and  fro  among  the 
fences ;  for  »  Malcam  shall  go  into  captivity,  his  priests 
and  his  princes  together.  ^  Wherefore  gloriest  thou  in  4 
the  valleys,  thy  flowing  valley,  O  backsliding  daughter  ? 
that  trusted  in  her  treasures,  saying,  Who  shall  come  unto 
me  ?     Behold,  I  will  bring  a  fear  upon  thee,  saith  the  5 

*  Or,  their  king  "Or,  Wherefore  gloriest  thou  in  the 

valleys?  thy  valley  floweth  aivay 

emended  into  Ar  (city),  thinking  that  as  the  capital  of  Moab  was 
called  Ar-Moab,  that  of  Ammon  might  be  called  Ar  or  Ar-Ammon. 
It  would  be  simpler,  with  Cornill,  to  read  'the  city'  {hair).  For 
*  Heshbon  '  he  proposes  '  children  of  Ammon,'  but  this  is  not  easy  ; 
Duhm  accepts  the  former  emendation,  but  for  'Heshbon  '  reads 
'  palace '  ('ntrwo;/),  also  not  quite  easy.  Rothstein  does  not 
challenge  '  Heshbon,'  but  eliminates  Ai  by  reading  *  for  thou  art 
spoiled.'  Cornill  thinks  a  line  is  missing  after  '  Rabbah,'  and  sug- 
gests, in  accordance  wdth  1.  12,  'for  your  mother  is  put  to  shame.' 
The  close  of  the  verse  is  taken  from  Amos  i.  15. 

fences.  The  word  properly  means  '  walls  ; '  it  is  used  with 
reference  to  sheep-folds,  and  the  explanation  is  given  that  they 
should  run  to  and  fro  in  the  open  country,  among  the  sheep-folds, 
because  the  cities  could  no  longer  afford  them  a  shelter.  But  the 
text  can  hardly  be  right,  the  idea  is  most  unnaturally  expressed. 
What  we  need  in  this  description  is  some  expression  of  mourning. 
Giesebrecht  proposed  an  emendation  for  the  whole  clause  which 
may  be  rendered  *  and  having  cut  yourselves,  wallow  (in  dust).' 
Duhm  suggested  a  similar  correction,  but  it  would  be  simpler  to 
read,  with  Cornill,  '  run  to  and  fro  in  mourning  attire.' 

4.  This  verse  also  is  difficult.  The  Hebrew  rendered  'thy 
flowing  valley  '  is  strange  ;  we  have  probably  to  do  with  a  case  of 
dittography,  and  should  read  simply  '  Wherefore  gloriest  thou  in 
thy  valley?'  i.  e.  the  valley  in  which  Rabbah  was  situated,  a  very 
well-watered  and  fertile  valley.  The  epithet '  backsliding '  is  also 
surprising  as  applied  to  a  heathen  people;  Duhm's  emendation, 
'careless,'  'arrogant'  (cf.  Isa.  xlvii.  7-10),  gives  an  excellent 
sense.  She  trusts  in  her  abundant  supplies  and  inaccessibility  to 
attack. 

5.  On  this  people,  thus  incredulous  of  calamity,  shall  fall  a  panic, 
inspired  by  an  onslaught  of  her  neighbours,  and  each  shall  seek 
his  own  safety  in  a  flight  which  recks  nothing  of  the  safety  of 
others,  and  which  will  not  be  retrieved.  '  Every  man  right  forth' 
is  literally  '  every  man  before  him.' 

II  R 


242  JEREMIAH  49.  6,  7.     JSJ 

Lord,  the  Lord  of  hosts,  from  all  that  are  round  about 
thee ;  and  ye  shall  be  driven  out  every  man  right  forth, 
and  there  shall  be  none  to  gather  up  him  that  wandereth. 
6  [s]  But  afterward  I  will  bring  again  the  captivity  of  the 
children  of  Ammon,  saith  the  Lord. 

?      [J]  Of  Edom.     Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts :   Is 

6.  This  verse  is  wanting  in  the  LXX,  and  is  probably  a  later 
addition. 

xlix.  7-22.     Oracle  on  Edom. 

Of  this  oracle,  equally  with  those  on  Moab  and  Ainmon,  we 
>  might  say  that  it  has  in  its  favour  the  fact  that  Edom  was  so  closely 
akin  to  Israel  in  blood  and  stood  in  such  intimate  relations  to  it 
in  history  that  the  absence  of  any  oracle  upon  it  would  be  surpris- 
ing. The  length  of  this  section  suggests  that,  as  in  the  case  of  Moab, 
a  Jeremianic  original  may  have  been  expanded  ;  and  this  is  made 
still  more  probable  by  the  close  parallel  with  the  Book  of  Obadiah. 
xlix.  9,  lo*  corresponds  to  Obad.  5,  6 ;  xlix.  14-16  to  Obad.  1-4  ; 
and  there  are  slighter  points  of  contact.  The  critical  problem  thus 
presented  is  very  complicated,  largely  on  account  of  the  uncer- 
tainties in  which  the  criticism  of  Obadiah  is  involved.  Since  in 
its  present  form  this  book  is  clearly  later  than  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  in  586  b.  c,  when  the  Edomites  displayed  a  bitter 
hostility  towards  Jacob  (Obad.  10  ff.),  it  cannot  have  been  used 
by  Jeremiah  in  a  prophecy  dating  from  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoia- 
kim.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  a  comparison  between  the  two  texts 
shows  that  Obadiah  on  the  whole  preserves  a  more  original  form 
than  Jeremiah,  it  has  been  very  widely  held  that  both  prophets 
quote  fi'om  an  earlier  oracle,  which  Obadiah  has  reproduced  more 
faithfully  :  and  this  opinion  is  still  held  by  several  eminent  critics, 
including  Driver,  G.  A.  Smith,  and  J.  A.  Selbie  ('  Obadiah '  in 
Hastings*  Dictionary  of  the  Bible).  The  problem  has,  however, 
passed  into  a  new  stage,  due  to  the  development  of  criticism  with 
reference  to  both  books.  So  far  as  Obadiah  is  concerned,  several 
of  the  foremost  Old  Testament  scholars,  including  Giesebrecht, 
Cornill,  Duhm,  Nowack,  and  Marti,  have  accepted  the  view  put 
forward  by  Wellhausen  that  the  two  prophets  did  not  quote  from 
an  earlier  prophecy,  but  that  the  original  work  of  Obadiah  con- 
sisted of  Obad.  1-5,  7,  10-14,  I5^  ^nd  was  wholly  written  some 
time  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  not  to  announce  the 
approaching  downfall  of  Edom,  but  to  describe  the  ruin  which  had 
already  overtaken  it.  This  was  the  expulsion  of  the  Edomites 
from  their  country  by  the  Arabs.     The  prophecy  was  brought  into 


JEREMIAH   19.  7.     J  243 

wisdotn  no  niorc  in  Tcman  ?  is  counsel  perished  from  the 

connexion  with  the  conditions  which  he  behind  the  Book  of 
Malachi.  As  criticism  stands  with  relerencc  to  the  Book  of  Jere- 
miah, no  veto  is  imposed  on  Wellhausen's  theory  by  the  quotation 
from  Obadiah  in  the  present  passage.  Assuming  that  the  version 
in  Jeremiah  is  secondary,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  regarding  it  as 
a  late  insertion  in  a  Jeremianic  oracle  ;  or  if  on  other  grounds  the 
authenticity  of  our  oracle  be  denied,  in  assuming  that  its  post- 
exilic  author  made  use  of  the  quotation.  If  the  extracts  in 
Jeremiah  are  indissolubly  connected  with  their  context,  this  would 
carry  with  it  an  acceptance  of  the  latter  alternative.  The  ques- 
tion as  to  the  criticism  of  Obadiah  need  not  be  further  pursued 
here  ;  the  student  may  refer  to  the  discussion  devoted  to  it  in  the 
commentary  on  that  Book  by  R.  F.  Horton  and  the  literature 
mentioned  above  ;  an  admirable  statement  and  defence  of  Well- 
hausen's view  is  given  by  G.  B.  Gray  in  the  article  on  '  Obadiah  '  in 
Hastings'  One  Volutne  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  So  far  as  our 
passage  is  concerned,  we  should  probably  adopt  the  view  that 
a  genuine  Jeremianic  nucleus  is  to  be  recognized,  but  that  there 
has  been  considerable  expansion.  Even  Giescbrecht  assigns  7-1 1, 
with  the  exception  of  9,  to  Jeremiah.  Cornill  agrees  as  to  these 
verses,  but  thinks  that  22  should  be  added  to  them,  at  least 
a  quatrain  having  been  omitted  in  the  revision.  The  object  of 
the  revision  was,  he  considers,  the  same  here  as  in  the  case  of 
Moab,  to  make  the  catastrophe  as  crushing  as  possible,  both  nations 
being  special  objects  of  Judah's  hatred  in  the  later  period, 

xlix.  7-12.  Has  Teman  lost  its  wisdom  ?  Let  the  Dedanites  flee, 
for  calamity  comes  upon  Edom  at  Yahweh's  hand  ;  he  will  not  be 
able  to  conceal  himself;  he  is  destroyed,  and  must  leave  his 
orphans  and  widows  in  the  care  of  Yahweh. 

13-22.  For  Bozrah  and  all  the  cities  shall  be  laid  waste  ;  the 
nations  are  summoned  to  war  against  her,  and  she  shall  be  made 
small  ;  her  proud  security  is  her  ruin  ;  all  that  pass  by  it  will  be 
astonished  at  her  fate.  The  land  shall  be  as  forsaken  as  the  cities 
of  the  Plain.  A  lion  will  come  and  drive  them  from  their  home- 
stead. They  shall  be  dragged  away  helpless.  The  earth  will 
tremble  at  the  crash  of  their  fall.  One  shall  swoop  upon  Bozrah 
like  a  griffon,  and  the  heart  of  Edom's  warriors  shall  be  in 
anguish. 

xlix.  7.  This  verse  has  some  likeness  to  Obad.  8,  but  is  not  taken 
from  it.  If  Wellhausen's  reconstruction  of  the  original  prophecy 
of  Obadiah  is  correct,  Obad.  8  is  a  later  insertion  ;  in  that  case  it  was 
probably  introduced  from  this  passage.  Teman  was  strictly  a  dis- 
trict of  Edom,  probably  in  the  north-cast  of  that  country,  since 
Dedan  (see  xxv.  23),  which  lay  on  the  south  of  Edom,  is  repre- 
R  2 


244  JEREMIAH  49.  8-IO.     JSJ 

8  prudent  ?  is  their  wisdom  vanished  ?  Flee  ye,  turn  back, 
dwell  deep,  O  inhabitants  of  Dedan  ;  for  I  will  bring  the 
calamity  of  Esau  upon  him,  the  time  that  I  shall  visit  him. 

9  [S]  If  grapegatherers  came  to  thee,  ^  would  they  not  leave 
some  gleaning  grapes  ?  if  thieves  by  night,  would  they  not 

lo  destroy  till  they  had  enough  ?  [j]  But  I  have  made  Esau 
bare,  I  have  uncovered  his  secret  places,  and  he  shall  not 
be  able  to  hide  himself:   his  seed  is  spoiled,  and  his 

*  fOr,  they  will  leave  no  gleaning  grapes;  if  thieves  by  nighty  they 
will  destroy  till  they  have  enough.    For  &c.    See  Obad.  5. 

sented  in  Ezek.  xxv.  13  as  at  the  other  extremity.  Its  chief  town 
seems  from  Amos  i.  12  to  have  been  Bozrah,  unless  Teman  is 
there  used  for  Edom  as  a  whole.  Eliphaz,  the  friend  of  Job,  was 
a  Temanite  ;  but  it  is  questionable  if  this  verse  substantiates  the 
current  opinion  that  Edom  was  famed  for  its  wisdom.  Cornill 
thinks  that  the  second  part  of  the  line  which  is  missing  after 
'  Teman,'  if  we  have  Qina  rhythm  here,  may  perhaps  have  run 
'discernment  in  Bozrah.' 

8.  The  Dedanites  (xxv.  23)  on  the  southern  border  of  Edom  are 
bidden  to  flee  and  '  dwell  deep '  in  some  impenetrable  retreat, 
lest  they  be  overwhelmed  by  the  blast  of  judgement  which  is  to 
sweep  over  Edom.  The  last  clause  of  the  verse  should  be  '  the 
time  of  his  visitation'  (so  LXX,  Vulgate). 

9.  This  verse  is  derived  from  Obad.  5,  where  the  meaning  is  that 
whereas  thieves  would  steal  only  till  they  had  enough,  and  grape- 
gatherers  would  leave  grapes  for  the  gleaners  who  followed  them, 
the  enemy  has  left  nothing  but  made  a  clean  sweep.  The  applica- 
tion is  different  here.  The  rendering  in  the  margin  gives  the  true 
sense  ;  and  the  enemy  are  not  contrasted  with  the  grapegatherers 
and  thieves,  but  represented  under  these  figures.  The  main  point 
is  the  same,  that  the  ruthless  foe  spares  nothing. 

10.  This  has  a  parallel  in  Obad.  6,  which  probably  does  not  belong 
to  the  original  prophecy,  but  has  been  inserted  in  Obadiah  from 
our  passage,  like  Obad.  8  (see  note  on  7).  The  superiority  in  sense 
lies  with  our  passage,  since  it  fits  the  context ;  the  Dedanites  are 
bidden  flee  to  their  retreats  (8),  but  Yahweh  has  made  this  im- 
possible for  Edom,  his  retreats  are  all  discovered.  The  first  person 
pronoun  is  emphatic. 

his  seed  ...  is  not.  Cornill  reads  simply  *he  is  spoiled  and 
is  not  ; '  partly  on  metrical  grounds,  partly  because  the  reference 
to  the  'seed'  conflicts  with  ir.  Rothstein  agrees  for  the  former 
reason  ;  Giesebrecht  omits  simply  *  and  his  brethren  and  his  neigh- 


JEREMIAH  49.  ri-i4.     JS  245 

brethren,  and  his  neighbours,  and  he  is  not.     Leave  thy  1 1 
fatherless  children,  I  will  preserve  them  alive;  and  let 
thy  widows  trust  in  me.     [s]  For  thus  saith  the  Lord:  13 
Behold,  they  ^to  whom  it  pertained  not  to  drink  of  the 
cup  shall  assuredly  drink;   and  art  thou   he  that  shall 
altogether  go  unpunished  ?  thou  shalt  not  go  unpunished, 
but  thou  shalt  surely  drink.     For  I  have  sworn  by  myself,  13 
saith  the  Lord,  that  Bozrah  shall  become  an  astonishment, 
a  reproach,  a  waste,  and  a  curse  ;  and  all  the  cities  thereof 
shall  be  perpetual  wastes.     ^I  have  heard  tidings  from  14 
•^  Or,  whose  Judgement  was  not  ^  See  Obad.  1-4. 

hours.'  The  LXX  reads  the  word  rendered  'seed'  as  'arm'  (or 
*  hand '  );  on  this  basis  Duhm  reads  '  he  is  spoiled  by  the  arm  of  his 
brothers  and  neighbours.' 

11.  In  this  context  a  very  striking  verse,  which  forms  a  noble 
contrast  to  the  unmeasured  hate  of  Edom  which  characterizes 
many  passages.  It  is  easier  to  believe  that  it  is  Jeremiah's  utter- 
ance than  that  of  another.  As  Cornill  truly  says,  it  is  remarkable 
that  it  was  not  expunged.  The  Divine  judgement  destroys  the 
warriors  of  Edom,  but  it  does  not  root  out  women  and  children  ; 
they  are  indeed  made  widows  and  orphans,  but  Yahweh  will  pity 
their  forlorn  condition  and  tenderly  comfort  and  preserve  them. 

12.  Cf.  XXV.  15-28  for  the  cup  of  Yahweh's  wrath.  This  verse 
rests  upon  xxv.  28,  29,  it  cannot  well  be  Jeremiah's,  for  he  held 
that  the  people  of  Yahweh  were  pre-eminently  worthy  to  drink  the 
cup.  '  He  would  have  been  the  last  to  say  that  Judah  or  Israel 
had  been  punished  without  deserving  it'  (Schwally).  No  doubt 
the  fact  that  its  punishment  is  spoken  of  as  still  future  might  be 
plausibly  urged  in  favour  of  a  date  before  586  B.C.  But  such  an 
anticipation  as  is  expressed  in  this  verse  might  well  have  been 
uttered  from  the  standpoint  of  the  later  eschatology. 

13.  Giesebrecht  prints  the  verse  as  secondary,  but  says  that  it 
may  perhaps  have  formed  the  conclusion  of  the  oracle.  Cornill 
treats  it  as  secondary,  since  it  is  written  in  prose. 

Bozrah  is  commonly  identified  with  Busairch,  about  twenty 
miles  south-east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  thirty-five  north  of  Petra ; 
though  R.  A.  S.  Macalister  says,  'The  guesses  that  have  been  made 
at  its  identification  are  of  no  importance '  (Hastings'  One  Volume 
Bible  Dictionary^ 

14-16.  These  verses  arc  parallel  to  Obad.  1-4,  and  derived  from 
it.     The  words  with  which  they  open  stand  much  better  at  the 


246  JEREMIAH  49.  15, 16.     S 

the  Lord,  and  an  ambassador  is  sent  among  the  nations, 
sayings  Gather  yourselves  together,  and  come  against  her, 

1 5  and  rise  up  to  the  battle.     For,  behold,  I  have  made 
thee  small  among  the  nations,  and  despised  among  men. 

16  As  for  thy  terribleness,  the  pride  of  thine  heart  hath 


beginning  of  a  prophecy  as  in  Obadiah,  than  in  the  middle  as  here. 
The  prophet  (for  '  I '  Obadiah  reads  *  We,'  i.e.  prophet  and  people) 
has  received  a  Divine  communication  ;  a  messenger  is  sent  to  stir 
the  nations  against  Edom  (cf.  Isa.  xiii.  2-4). 

15.  The  consequent  humiliation  of  Edom. 

16.  The  opening  of  the  verse  is  very  difficult,  perhaps  incurably 
corrupt.  The  word  rendered,  'As  for  thy  terribleness'  is  absent 
from  Obadiah,  and  occurs  nowhere  else.  If  this  rendering  is  cor- 
rect, the  meaning  may  be  that  although  the  formidable  character  of 
Edom,  due  to  her  almost  impregnable  position,  had  indeed  led 
her  to  deem  herself  beyond  peril,  Yahweh  by  bringing  her 
down  would  convince  her  that  her  pride  had  played  her  false. 
More  probably  it  is  an  exclamation  meaning  either  *  Oh  thy  shud- 
dering ! '  i.e.  when  the  unexpected  calamity  overtakes  thee,  or 
'Oh  the  shuddering  for  thee!'  i.e.  for  the  shuddering  thy  fate 
inspires  in  the  spectators.  Duhm  has  made  a  remarkably  ingenious 
suggestion.  He  points  the  last  word  of  15  so  as  to  yield  the  sense 
'  through  Edom  thy  Horror  ;'  Edom  being  interpreted  as  the  name 
of  a  god.  We  have  no  proof  that  Edom  was  the  name  of  a  god, 
though  several  scholars  believe  that  it  was,  and  Obed-edom  might 
be  quoted  in  corroboration  (see  S.  A.  Cook's  note  in  Enc.  Bib.  3462). 
Duhm  takes  the  word  to  be  a  gloss,  since  it  is  absent  in  Obadiah. 
In  his  translation,  however,  he  renders  '  and  despised  of  men  thy 
image  of  horror.' 

The  description  of  Edom's  almost  inaccessible  position  is  very 
true  to  the  facts.  '  Its  capital,  Petra,  lay  in  an  amphitheatre  of 
mountains,  accessible  only  through  the  narrow  gorge,  called  the 
Sik,  winding  in  with  precipitous  sides  from  the  west ;  and  the 
mountain  sides  round  Petra,  and  the  ravines  about  it,  contain 
innumerable  rock-hewn  cavities,  some  being  tombs,  but  others 
dwellings,    in    which    the    ancient    inhabitants    lived '     (Driver). 

*  The  interior  is  reached  by  defiles,  so  narrow  that  two  horsemen 
may  scarcely  ride  abreast,  and  the  sun  is  shut  out  by  the  over- 
hanging rocks.  . . .  Little  else  than  wild-fowls'  nests  are  the  villages  ; 
human  eyries  perched  on  high  shelves  or  hidden  away  in  caves  at 
the  ends  of  the  deep  gorges'  (G.  A.  Smith,  The  Book  of  the  Twelve 
Prophets,  ii.  p.   179).     As  the  last  writer  further  points  out,  it  was 

*  a  well-stocked,  well- watered  country,  full  of  food  and  lusty  men, 


JEREMIAH  49.  17-19.     S  247 

deceived  thee,  O  thou  that  dwellest  in  the  clefts  of  ^the 
rock,  that  holdest  the  height  of  the  hill :   though  thou 
shouldest  make  thy  nest  as  high  as  the  eagle,  I  will  bring 
thee  down  from  thence,  saith  the  Lord.     And  Edom  17 
shall  become  an  astonishment :  every  one  that  passeth 
by  it  shall  be  astonished,  and  shall  hiss  at  all  the  plagues 
thereof.     As  in  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  iS 
and  the  neighbour  cities  thereof,  saith  the  Lord,  no  man 
shall  dwell  there,  neither  shall  any  son  of  man  sojourn 
therein.     Behold,  he  shall  come  up  like  a  lion  from  the  19 
^  pride  of  Jordan  c  against  the  strong  habitation :  ^^  but 
I  will  suddenly  make  him  run  away  from  her ;  and  whoso 
is  chosen,  him  will  I  appoint  over  her :  for  who  is  like 
me  ?  and  who  will  appoint  me  a  time  ?  and  who  is  the 

**  Or,  Sela     Sec  2  Kings  xiv.  7.  ^  Or,  sivelUiig  ^  fOr, 

unto  the  permanent  pastures  ^  +0r,  for  I  will  suddenly  drive 

iliem  away 


yet  lifted  so  high,  and  locked  so  fast  by  precipice  and  slippery 
mountains,  that  it  calls  for  little  trouble  of  defence.' 

the  rock.  This  is  probably  the  correct  rendering,  but  there  is 
an  allusion  to  Sela,  i.e.  perhaps  Petra,  which  lay  fifty  miles  south 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  in  the  situation  described  in  the  preceding  note. 
It  was  the  capital  of  the  Nabataeans. 

17.  Almost  identical  with  xix.  8  ;  cf.  xviii.  16. 

18.  The  neig-hbour  cities  are  Admah  and  Zeboim,  Deut. 
xxix.  23 :  cf.  Hos.  xi.  8.  The  verse  is  repeated  in  1.  40.  Notice 
'son  of  man,'  used  as  the  equivalent  of  'man.' 

19-21.  Repeated  in  1.  44-46,  with  adaptations  to  Babylon. 

19.  The  foe  comes  up  against  Edom  as  a  lion  comes  from  the 
jungle  to  the  pastures  in  search  of  prey.  The  word  rendered 
'strong'  is  rather  'permanent.'  We  may  render  'permanent 
homestead,'  explaining  'an  abode  of  long  standing  and  likely  to 
endure.'  The  adjective  is  not  very  suitable;  Duhm  suggests 
'  pasture  of  rams  ; '  Cornill  improves  this  excellent  suggestion,  read- 
ing 'pasture  of  sheep.'  He  continues  'so  will  I  suddenly  drive 
them  away,  and  their  choice  rams  will  I  visit.'  No  shepherd  will 
be  able  to  withstand  the  foe,  for  Yahweh  urges  it  on. 

appoint  me  a  time?  i.  e.  for  a  contest :  cf.  Job  ix.  ig.  No 
power  is  strong  enough  to  challenge  Yahweh. 


248  JEREMIAH  49.  20-23.     SJ 

20  shepherd  that  will  stand  before  me  ?  Therefore  hear  ye 
the  counsel  of  the  Lord,  that  he  hath  taken  against  Edom; 
and  his  purposes,  that  he  hath  purposed  against  the 
inhabitants  of  Teman  :  Surely  ^  they  shall  drag  them  away, 
even  the  little  ones  of  the  flock ;  surely  he  shall  make 

2 1  their  ^  habitation  c  desolate  with  them.  The  earth  trem- 
bleth  at  the  noise  of  their  fall ;  there  is  a  cry,  the  noise 

2  2  whereof  is  heard  in  the  Red  Sea.  [j]  Behold,  he  shall 
come  up  and  fly  as  the  eagle,  and  spread  out  his  wings 
against  Bozrah :  and  the  heart  of  the  mighty  men  of 
Edom  at  that  day  shall  be  as  the  heart  of  a  woman  in  her 
pangs. 

23      Of  Damascus.     Hamath  is  ashamed,  and  Arpad;  for 

^  Or,  the  little  ones  of  the  flock  shall  drag  them  away 
^  Or,  pastures         "  Or,  astonished  at  them 

20.  When  the  Hon  pounces  on  the  flock,  a  h'on  so  fierce  and 
powerful  that  no  shepherd  can  withstand  him,  the  helpless  sheep 
are  dragged  off  to  be  devoured.  Duhm  and  Cornill  render  '  the 
shepherd  lads'  instead  of  'the  little  ones  of  the  flock.' 

22.  Cornill  thinks  that  this  verse,  with  its  simile  of  the  eagle  so 
appropriate  to  the  foe  which  strikes  at  Edom  in  its  mountain 
fastnesses,  formed  the  conclusion  of  the  original  prophecy,  and  that 
one  quatrain  at  least  must  have  been  struck  out  between  11  and 
22.     This  verse  has  been  employed  in  xlviii.  40,  41. 

xlix.  23-27.  Oracle  on  Damascus. 
The  authenticity  of  this  oracle  is  rejected  by  Cornill  and 
Koberle,  not  to  mention  other  scholars.  Certainly  there  are  diffi- 
culties in  accepting  it.  Too  much  importance  must  not  be  attached 
to  the  fact  that  the  title  does  not  quite  harmonize  with  the  con- 
tents ;  which  are  concerned  also  with  Hamath  and  Arpad  (cf.  Isa. 
xvii.  i-ii).  The  charge  that  the  situation  is  very  indefinitely 
described  applies  to  other  oracles,  the  genuineness  of  which  we 
have  accepted  ;  and  granting  that  it  dates  from  605  b.  c.  ,  there  was 
no  need  to  describe  conditions  familiar  to  all.  More  serious  is  the 
absence  of  any  reference  to  these  cities  in  the  vision  of  judgement 
(xxv.  18  ff.)  If  Jeremiah  at  this  time  composed  an  oracle  on  them, 
it  is  not  easy  to  understand  why  they  are  not  included  in  the  list 
of  those  who  drank  the  cup.     If  this  objection  is  not  fatal,  there 


JEREMIAH  49.  24,  25.     J  249 

they  have  heard  evil  tidings,  they  are  melted  away  :  there 
is  ^  sorrow  on  the  sea  ;  it  cannot  be  quiet.     Damascus  is  24 
waxed  feeble,  she  turneth  herself  to  flee,  and  trembling 
hath  seized  on  her :  anguish  and  sorrows  have  taken  hold 
of  her,  as  of  a  woman  in  travail.     How  is  the  city  of  2.5 
*  I  Or,  care 

is  no  decisive  reason  against  recognizing  a  genuine  nucleus  (so 
Rothstein).  The  last  verse  is  imitated  from  the  refrain  in  Amos  i. 
3 — ii.  5,  and  corresponds  closely  to  Amos  i.  4  (see  on  xvii.  27). 
We  find  26  also  in  1.  30  ;  it  may  be  original  here,  but  'Therefore  ' 
is  more  appropriate  there.  These  two  verses  are  accordingly  not 
unlikely  to  be  an  addition.  No  serious  difficulty  lies  against  24, 25, 
except  that  the  language  of  24  is  rather  conventional  and  contains 
an  Aramaism.  Verse  23  is  not  quite  so  easy  to  accept  in  its 
present  form,  but  it  is  generally  recognized  that  the  text  is  corrupt. 
On  the  whole  the  present  writer  inclines  to  regard  23-25  as  by 
Jeremiah. 

xlix.  23-27.  Hamath  and  Arpad  are  dismayed  ;  Damascus  in 
terror  turns  to  escape.  The  city  is  forsaken.  Therefore  her 
warriors  shall  be  overthrown  ;  and  a  fire  from  Yahweh  shall 
devour  the  palaces  of  Ben-hadad. 

xlix.  23.  Hamath,  now  called  Hama,  still  an  important  town, 
was  a  famous  city  of  Syria,  situated  on  the  Orontes,  no  miles 
north  of  Damascus.  Arpad,  now  Tell-Erfad,  which  is  often 
mentioned  with  it  (Isa.  x.  9,  xxxvi.  19,  xxxvii.  13),  lay  95  miles 
further  north,  and  10  miles  north  of  Aleppo.  The  prophet  des- 
cribes the  terror  and  paralysis  due  to  the  tidings  they  have  heard, 
i.  e.  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  advance. 

there  is  .  .  .  quiet.  This  clause  is  unintelligible  in  its 
present  form  ;  there  is  no  sea  at  Damascus.  Several  scholars  read 
'  like  the  sea  ; '  Cornill  objects  that  the  raging  sea  is  very  unsuita- 
ble to  describe  a  people  in  terror,  and  with  a  slight  emendation 
reads  *  they  are  melted  away  there  from  care.'  The  present  text 
may  have  arisen  through  the  influence  of  Isa.  Ivii.  20. 

24.  Damascus  was  a  very  ancient  city ;  for  long  the  chief  city 
in  Syria. 

tremblinef :  the  word  is  Aramaic. 

25.  The  text  can  hardly  be  correct ;  we  expect  '  How  is  the  city 
of  praise  forsaken.'  The  omission  of  the  negative  gives  the  right 
sense,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  understand  its  insertion.  Cornill  reads 
'  Woe  is  me,  for  the  city  of  praise  is  forsaken.'  The  closing  words 
show  that  a  Damascene  is  speaking,  unless  with  several  Versions 
we  read  'the  city  of  joy.'  In  that  case  Duhm's  'Woe  to  her' 
would  need  to  be  substituted  for  Cornill's  '  Woe  is  me.' 


250  JEREMIAH  49.  26-28.     JSJ 

26  praise  not  forsaken,  the  city  of  my  joy  ?  [s]  Therefore 
her  young  men  shall  fall  in  her  streets,  and  all  the  men 
of  war  shall  be  brought  to  silence  in  that  day,  saith  the 

27  Lord  of  hosts.  And  I  will  kindle  a  fire  in  the  wall  of 
Damascus,  and  it  shall  devour  the  palaces  of  Ben-hadad. 

28  [J]  Of  Kedar,  and  of  the  kingdoms  of  Hazor,  which 
Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon  smote. 

26.  Therefore  is  here  quite  unsuitable  ;  if  1.  30  is  borrowed 
from  our  passage,  the  latter  may  have  been  influenced  in  turn  by 
it,  or  the  original  text  may  have  been  'Surely.' 

27.  Cf.  Amos  i.  4.  Several  kings  of  Damascus  bore  the  name 
Ben-hadad. 

xlix.  28-33.  Oracle  on  Arab  Tribes. 
Like  the  preceding  oracle,  this  also  is  rejected  by  Giesebrecht, 
Cornill,  and  Koberle.  On  the  other  hand  Winckler,  though 
with  rather  drastic  textual  criticism,  Erbt,  and  Rothstein  have 
accepted  its  authenticity,  at  least  in  part.  Such  an  oracle  we  are 
led  to  expect  by  the  reference  to  Arab  tribes  in  xxv.  23.  It  is 
not  quite  clear  why  such  an  oracle  should  have  been  composed  in  the 
post-exiHc  period.  It  is  true  that  the  Arabs  are  represented  as 
then  hostile  to  Judah,  and  the  spread  of  the  Nabataeans  might 
have  occasioned  a  prophecy  against  them.  But  the  fact  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  expressly  mentioned  as  the  enemy  leaves  us 
with  the  pre-exilic  date,  or  a  deliberate  ante-dating  of  the  oracle, 
as  our  only  alternatives.  It  is  probable  that  here,  as  elsewhere, 
a  prophecy  by  Jeremiah  has  been  expanded  by  a  later  writer.  The 
influence  of  Ezekiel  is  fairly  clear  in  30,  31. 

xlix.  28-33.  Yahweh  gives  the  order  to  spoil  Kedar  of  tents  and 
flocks,  of  hangings  and  camels.  Let  the  inhabitants  of  Hazor  find 
a  remote  retreat,  for  Nebuchadnezzar  has  designs  against  them. 
Let  them  take  refuge  with  a  people  secure  from  invasion.  Their 
camels  and  cattle  shall  be  the  victor's  spoil ;  they  themselves  shall 
be  scattered  to  all  the  winds  ;  and  their  land  shall  be  a  perpetual 
desolation. 

xlix.  28.  Kedar  (see  ii.  10)  was  the  name  of  a  prosperous  Arab 
tribe  livingin  village  communities  in  the  wilderness,  often  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  cuneiform  inscriptions.  Hazor  is 
elsewhere  used  for  towns  in  Palestine  ;  here  it  may  be  an  Arabian 
town,  otherwise  unknown  to  us  ;  or  it  may  be  the  name  of 
a  district  where  the  Arabs  had  settled  down  and  dwelt  in  villages, 


JEREMIAH  49.  29-32.     JS  251 

Thus  saith  the  I,ord  :  Arise  ye,  go  up  to  Kedar,  and 
spoil  the  children  of  the  east.    Their  tents  and  their  flocks  ^9 
shall  they  take ;  they  shall  carry  away  for  themselves  their 
curtains,  and  all  their  vessels,  and  their  camels  :  and  they 
shall  cry  unto  them,  Terror  on  every  side.     Flee  ye,  3° 
wander  far  off,  dwell  deep,  O  ye  inhabitants  of  Hazor, 
saith  the  Lord  ;   for  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon 
hath   taken  counsel   against  you,  and   hath   conceived 
a  purpose  against  you.    [s]  Arise,  get  you  up  unto  a  nation  3i 
that  is  at  ease,  that  dwelleth  without  care,  saith  the  Lord  ; 
which  have  neither  gates  nor  bars,  which  dwell  alone. 
And  their  camels  shall  be  a  booty,  and  the  multitude  of  3a 
their  cattle  a  spoil :  and  I  will  scatter  unto  all  winds  them 
that  have  the  corners  of  their  hair  polled;  and  I  will 
bring  their  calamity  from  every  side  of  them,  saith  the 


the  name  being  derived  from  the  Hebrew  term  for  village  (cf.  Isa. 
xlii.  11).  '  Kingdom  '  is  strange;  the  LXX  gives  'queen,'  which 
Winckler,  Schmidt,  and  Erbt  accept.  We  read  elsewhere  of  queens 
in  this  region.  'The  children  of  the  east'  are  the  Arabian  tribes 
on  the  east  of  Palestine. 

29.  It  is  the  nomads  rather  than  the  settled  tribes  that  are  here 
in  mind.     The  curtains  are  the  tent  hangings,  as  in  iv.  20. 

Terror  on  every  side:  a  Jeremianic  expression,  which,  of 
course,  might  be  due  to  a  conscious  attempt  to  simulate  the 
prophet's  style. 

30.  The  writer  is  either  Jeremiah  or  means  to  be  taken  for  him, 
since  the  circumstances  presupposed  are  those  of  Jeremiah's  time. 
The  exhortation  'dwell  deep'  is  less  suitable  to  Bedawin  than  to 
the  Edomites  to  whom  it  is  addressed  in  8.  It  has  not  improbably 
been  mistakenly  introduced  here  from  that  verse. 

31 .  32.  These  verses  have  features  in  common  with  Ezckiel  which 
point  to  their  composition  or  at  least  interpolation  under  his  influence. 
The  description  of  the  attack  by  Gog  and  his  hordes  on  the 
defenceless  Israelites,  '  that  are  at  quiet,  that  dwell  securely,  all 
of  them  dwelling  without  walls,  and  having  neither  bars  nor  gates  ' 
CEzek.  xxxviii.  11),  is  before  the  writer's  mind,  and  there  are 
other  points  of  contact  between  the  passages.  Cf.  also  Judg.  xviii. 
7,  10,  27,  28.     The  exhortation  is  addressed  to  the  enemy. 

32.  them  .   .  .  polled:  cf.  ix.  26,  xxv.  23. 


252  JEREMIAH  49.  33, 34-     SJ 

33  Lord.  And  Hazor  shall  be  a  dwelling  place  of  jackals, 
a  desolation  for  ever  :  no  man  shall  dwell  there,  neither 
shall  any  son  of  man  sojourn  therein. 

34  [j]  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  to  Jeremiah  the 
prophet  concerning  Elam  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of 

33.  Cf.  ix.  II,  X.  22  for  the  former  part  of  the  verse  ;  xlix.  i8 
for  the  latter. 

xHx.  34-39.     Oracle  on  Elam. 

Elam  was  a  country  lying  to  the  east  of  South  Babylonia  and 
the  Lower  Tigris,  later  known  as  Susiana,  and  roughly  identical 
with  the  country  now  called  Chuzistan.  That  Jeremiah  should 
devote  an  oracle  to  a  country  so  distant  and  remote  from  Jewish 
interests  has  seemed  to  many  scholars  improbable ;  and  even 
Rothstein  rejects  its  authenticity.  Koberle,  however,  who  judges 
the  prophecies  on  the  nations  less  favourably  than  Rothstein, 
accepts  it ;  and  Cornill  accepts  a  genuine  nucleus,  which  was,  he 
believes,  expanded  when  the  Elamites  were  identified  with  the 
Persians.  Giesebrecht  and  Schmidt  think  the  whole  was  written 
under  the  Persian  rule  ;  the  latter  supposes  that  it  was  written  at 
the  approach  of  Alexander,  the  hatred  of  Persia  which  it  breathes 
being  occasioned  by  the  sufferings  of  the  Jews  at  the  hands  of 
Ochus.  But  if  the  oracle  is  entirely  spurious,  it  is  very  strange 
that  a  special  date  should  be  assigned  to  it,  since  we  should  have 
expected  it  to  be  dated  with  the  others  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim.  And  the  altered  conditions  at  this  date  are  favourable 
to  the  authenticity,  Elam  was  distant  from  Judaea,  but  it  was 
near  to  Babylon.  And  with  Jehoiachin  a  large  number  of  Jews 
had  gone  to  Babylon,  and  they  kept  up  a  close  and  constant  corre- 
spondence with  Judaea.  For  them  the  fate  of  Elam  would  have  an 
interest  it  could  not  have  possessed  before  the  deportation.  At 
a  later  time  Ezekiel  refers  to  the  overthrow  of  Elam,  here  it  is 
anticipated.  It  has  been  argued  that  the  overthrow  was  actually 
effected  by  the  Persian  king  Teispes,  the  great-grandfather  of 
Cyrus.  Cornill  thinks  that  Jeremiah's  interest  may  have  been  due 
to  a  presentiment  that  the  power  which  had  laid  Elam  low  might 
be  the  destined  conqueror  of  Babylon,  as  indeed  proved  to  be  the 
case. 

xlix.  34-39.  Jeremiah's  prophecy  on  Elam  at  the  beginning  of 
Zedekiah's  reign.  Elam's  bow  shall  be  broken,  and  the  Elamites 
shall  be  scattered  to  the  four  winds  among  all  nations.  Elam  shall 
be  dismayed  before  its  enemies,  and  the  sword  shall  consume  them. 
Yet  it  shall  be  restored  in  the  latter  days. 


JEREMIAH  49.  36—50.  i.     JS  JS  253 

Zedekiah  king  of  Judah,  saying,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  35 
of  hosts  :  Behold,  I  will  break  the  bow  of  Elam,  the  chief 
of  their  might,     [sj  And  upon  Elam  will  I  bring  the  four  36 
winds  from  the  four  quarters  of  heaven,  and  will  scatter 
them  toward  all  those  winds  ;  and  there  shall  be  no  nation 
whither  ^  the  outcasts  of  Elam  shall  not  come,     [j]  And  37 
I  will  cause  Elam  to  be  dismayed  before  their  enemies, 
and  before  them  that  seek  their  life  :  and  I  will  bring  evil 
upon  them,  even  my  fierce  anger,  saith  the  Lord  ;  and 
I  will  send  the  sword  after  them,  till  I  have  consumed 
them :  and  I  will  set  my  throne  in  Elam,  and  will  destroy  3^ 
from  thence  king  and  princes,  saith  the  Lord.     But  it  39 
shall  come  to  pass  in  the  latter  days,  that  I  will  bring 
again  the  captivity  of  Elam,  saith  the  Lord. 

[s]  The  word  that  the  Lord  spake  concerning  Babylon,  50 

*  Another  reading  is,  i/ie  everlasting  outcasts. 

zliz.  35.  The  Elamites  were  famous  archers  :  cf.  Isa.  xxii.  6. 
A  similar  expression,  however,  is  used  with  reference  to  Israel  in 
Hos.  i.  5. 

36.  Cornill  regards  this  as  a  later  insertion.  The  expression  to 
'scatter  them  toward  all  those  winds'  is  characteristic  of  Ezekiel 
(Ezek.  V.  ID,  12,  xii.  14),  and  the  opening  of  the  verse  recalls 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  9,  and  if  there  is  dependence,  Ezekiel  is  obviously 
the  original.  The  latter  point  can  hardly  be  pressed.  It  is,  how- 
ever, strange  to  read  37  after  36.  After  the  prophecy  that  Elam 
will  be  scattered  by  the  four  winds  to  every  nation  under  heaven, 
we  do  not  expect  to  read  that  it  will  be  dismayed  before  its 
enemies.  Verse  37  fits  well  to  35,  and  the  progress  of  thought  is 
interrupted  by  36. 

38.  Yahweh  sets  His  throne  in  Elam  in  order  to  judge  it. 

1.  I — li.  58.  Oracle  on  Babylon. 
That  in  a  series  of  oracles  on  the  nations  Jeremiah  should 
include  a  prophecy  of  Babylon's  overthrow  ought  to  occasion  no 
surprise.  Although  he  saw  in  Babylon  the  agent  of  Yahweh's 
judgement  on  Judah  and  other  nations,  he  predicted  that  its 
empire  would  fall  in  seventy  years.  Moreover,  that  such  an  oracle 
was  composed  by  him  is  attested  by  the  narrative  in  li.  59-64,  if 


254  JEREMIAH  50.  i.     S 

concerning  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  by  Jeremiah  the 
prophet. 


its  historicity  can  be  accepted.  Nevertheless  it  is  an  almost  uni- 
versally accepted  result  of  criticism  that  1.  i — li.  58  cannot  be  the 
work  of  Jeremiah.  This  view  was  put  forward  by  Eichhorn,  and 
in  spite  of  opposition  from  several  scholars,  notably  Graf,  it  has 
been  more  and  more  adopted,  Orelli  constituting  the  chief  excep- 
tion at  the  present  day.  To  this  result  Kuenen  and  especially 
Budde  have  been  the  foremost  contributors.  According  to  li.  59-64, 
the  oracle  belongs  to  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah.  It  does  not 
belong  to  the  oracles  on  the  foreign  nations  published  in  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim,  so  that  its  authenticity  is  not  supported  by  these. 
It  is  distinguished  from  these  also  by  its  immense  length.  It  con- 
tains 103  verses  :  that  on  Moab,  which  approaches  it  most  nearly, 
contains  forty-seven  verses.  It  is  noteworthy  for  its  frequent 
repetitions.  Budde  reckons  that  the  approach  of  desolation  is 
mentioned  eleven  times ;  the  capture  and  destruction  of  Babylon 
nine  times ;  Israel's  flight  and  return  to  Palestine  seven  times ; 
and  other  themes  are  similarly  the  subject  of  repeated  reference. 
Such  a  feature  is  quite  unexampled  in  Jeremiah's  prophecies. 
Looking  at  it  still  from  the  literary  standpoint  the  relationship 
with  other  writings  is  very  close.  The  fact  that  characteristic 
expressions  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  are  present  in  large  propor- 
tions might  be  urged  in  favour  of  its  authenticity  ;  but  what  was 
possible  to  Graf  with  his  acceptance  of  almost  the  whole  of  the 
book  as  Jeremiah's,  is  no  longer  possible  to  those  who  recognize 
that  not  a  little  is  secondary,  and  that  our  chapters  have  affinity 
with  these  as  well  as  with  the  genuine  passages.  Moreover  it 
betrays  the  same  relationship  to  other  and  later  writings  from 
Ezekiel  onwards,  in  particular  to  the  later  sections  of  the  Book  of 
Isaiah.  The  situation  reflected  in  the  oracle  is  not  that  of  Zede- 
kiah's  fourth  year.  Israel  and  Judah  are  in  exile  (1.  4,  5,  8,  19, 
28,  33,  li.  34,  45)  ;  the  Temple  has  been  violated  by  the  Baby- 
lonians (1.  28,  li.  II,  51).  It  is  true  that  the  captivity  of  Israel 
had  happened  long  before,  and  that  a  largebody  of  Jewshad  been 
deported  with  Jehoiachin,  together  with  Temple  vessels.  But  the 
language  suggests  that  a  much  more  drastic  fate  had  fallen  on  city 
and  people.  It  can  hardly  be  satisfied  by  anything  short  of  the 
catastrophe  of  586.  And  since  the  writer  anticipates  that  the  over- 
throw of  Babylon  is  near  at  hand,  he  cannot  be  identified  with 
Jeremiah  who  expected  its  empire  to  last  for  seventy  years.  Nor 
is  the  attitude  to  practical  issues  the  same.  Jeremiah,  in  prospect 
of  the  long  captivity,  calms  the  excitement  of  the  exiles  and  bids 
them  acquiesce  in  their  lot  and  pray  for  the  peace  of  Babylon; 
the  author  of  this  prophecy  anticipates  its  speedy  downfall,  and 


JEREMIAH  50.  2.     S  255 

Declare  ye  among  the  nations  and  publish,  and  set 
up  a  standard  ;  publish,  and  conceal  not :  say,  Babylon 
is  taken,  Bel  is  put  to  shame,  Merodach  is  «-  dismayed ; 

"■  Or,  broken  down 


excites  the  Jews  with  predictions  of  their  approaching  deliverance. 
And  while  the  prophet  believed  that  Babylon's  time  also  would 
come,  he  betrays  no  exultation  such  as  is  so  strongly  expressed 
in  this  prophecy,  nor  any  bitter,  vindictive  feelings  for  the  wrongs 
inflicted  on  Judah.  He  looked  on  the  Chaldeans  as  Yahweh's 
agents  of  chastisement  for  His  people  ;  our  author  sees  in  their 
overthrow  Yahweh's  vengeance  for  the  judgement  they  have 
executed. 

Since  we  have  reason  to  suppose  that  Jeremiah  wrote  an  oracle 
announcing  the  fate  of  Babylon,  it  is  not  impossible  that  it  has 
been  preserved  in  our  prophecy.  The  earlier  attempts  by  Movers 
and  Hitzig  to  extract  a  genuine  nucleus  have  met  with  no  accept- 
ance. But,  with  the  example  of  the  other  oracles,  it  is  by  no  means 
arbitrary  to  suppose  that  our  prophecy  may  have  grown  up  about 
a  genuine  kernel,  as  Rothstein  believes.  This  cannot,  however,  be 
pointed  out  with  any  confidence ;  and,  even  if  it  exists,  can  form 
only  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  whole. 

The  most  obvious  suggestion  as  to  the  date  is  that  it  belongs  to 
the  period  immediately  preceding  the  capture  of  Babylon  by 
Cyrus  in  538,  that  of  Isa.  xiii.  i — xiv.  23,  and  Isa.  xl-lv.  But  its 
affinity  with  these  and  later  writings  makes  such  a  date  improb- 
able, since  it  seems  generally  to  be  secondary  rather  than  original. 
It  would  be  a  mistake  to  regard  it  as  a  purely  literary  production 
concerned  with  a  dead  issue.  Babylon  was  not  destroyed  by 
Cyrus,  but  remained  for  several  generations,  its  continued  existence 
a  perplexity  to  those  who  read  the  earlier  prophecies  of  its  utter 
ruin.     To  such  perplexity  our  oracle  seeks  to  give  an  answer. 

In  view  of  the  numerous  repetitions  and  the  absence  of  any 
ordered  development  of  the  theme,  it  would  be  unprofitable  to 
prefix  the  usual  analysis  to  the  annotations. 

1.  2.  It  is  remarkable  how  much  repetition  there  is  in  this  verse  ; 
'publish,'  'put  to  shame,'  'dismayed,'  are  each  repeated.  But  We 
should  perhaps  omit,  with  the  LXX,  'and  set  up  a  standard; 
publish  ; '  the  setting  up  of  the  standard  is  not  suitable  here,  and 
seems  to  be  a  gloss  borrowed  from  Isa.  xiii.  2,  this  chapter  having 
several  points  of  contact  with  our  oracle. 

Bel:  properly  an  appellative,  meaning  'lord,'  but  used  also  as 
a  proper  name.  Bel  came  to  be  identified  with  Merodach,  i.e. 
Marduk  the  chief  god  of  Babylon.     Here  they  seem  to  be  distin- 


256  JEREMIAH  50.  3-6.    S 

her  images  are  put  to  shame,  her  idols  are  ^dismayed. 

3  For  out  of  the  north  there  cometh  up  a  nation  against 
her,  which  shall  make  her  land  desolate,  and  none  shall 
dwell  therein  :  they  are  fled,  they  are  gone,  both  man  and 

4  beast.  In  those  days,  and  in  that  time,  saith  the  Lord, 
the  children  of  Israel  shall  come,  they  and  the  children 
of  Judah  together ;  they  shall  go  on  their  way  weeping, 

5  and  shall  seek  the  Lord  their  God.  They  shall  inquire 
concerning  Zion  with  their  faces  t)  thitherward,  sayings 
Come  ye,  and  ^join  yourselves  to  the  Lord  in  an  ever- 
lasting covenant  that  shall  not  be  forgotten. 

6  My  people  hath  been  lost  sheep  :  their  shepherds  have 

^  Or,  broken  down  ^  f  Heb.  hiiherward. 

*^  Or,  they  shall  join  themselves 

guished.    The  gods  of  Babylon  are  put  to  confusion  by  the  inevitable 
disaster  that  has  overtaken  their  city. 

idols :  or  *  idol  blocks.'    This  contemptuous  term  is  a  favourite 
one  with  Ezekiel. 

3.  Cf.  iv.  6,  7,  25.  Jeremiah's  characteristic  *  out  of  the  north,' 
applied  to  the  Scythians  and  then  the  Babylonians,  is  here 
borrowed  to  describe  the  foe  who  is  to  destroy  Babylon.  It  suits 
the  Medes  better  than  the  Persians  ;  but  the  north  had  a  suggestion 
of  mystery,  and  the  mention  of  it  heightens  the  terror.  For  the 
close  of  the  verse  cf.  ix.  10. 

4.  5.  In  these  beautiful  verses  the  author  takes  up  the  ideas  of 
the  reunion  of  Israel  in  their  return  to  Zion,  and  of  their  penitence 
for  their  sin.  Cf.  iii.  12,  13,  18,  21-25,  xxiii.  6,  xxxi.  i,  9,  18,  19, 
xxxiii.  7. 

5.  thitherward.  The  literal  rendering  '  hitherward '  should 
have  been  substituted  ;  the  author  was  accordingly  resident  in 
Palestine. 

everlasting-  covenant :  cf.  xxxii.  40. 

6.  The  verse  describes  the  evil  condition  of  the  people,  the 
shepherds  who  should  have  guided  them  aright  have  led  them 
astray.  The  Hebrew  text  is  uncertain,  the  rendering  in  the  E.V. 
follows  the  Hebrew  margin  and  the  LXX.  The  consonantal  text 
is  generally  rendered  'on  the  seducing  mountains,'  but  'apostate' 
would  be  a  more  accurate  rendering  than  'seducing.'  There 
might  be  a  reference  to  the  high-places.  It  would  be  better  to 
accept    the    rendering,    'they   have    turned  them   away   on   the 


JEREMIAH  60.  7-9.     S  257 

caused  them  to  go  astray,  they  have  turned  them  away  on 
the  mountains  :  they  have  gone  from  mountain  to  hill, 
they  have  forgotten  their  resting  place.     All  that  found  7 
them  have  devoured  them:  and  their  adversaries  said, 
We  offend  not,  because  they  have  sinned  against  the 
Lord,  the  habitation  of  justice,  even  the  Lord,  the  hope 
of  their  fathers.     Flee  out  of  the  midst  of  Babylon,  and  8 
go  forth  out  of  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  be  as  the 
he-goats  before  the  flocks.      For,  lo,  I  will  stir  up  and  q 
cause  to  come  up  against  Babylon  an  assembly  of  great 
nations  from  the  north  country  :  and  they  shall  set  them 
selves  in  array  against  her;  from  thence  she  shall  be 

mountains.'  Some  think  that  this  refers  to  the  worship  at  the 
high-places,  on  the  ground  that  the  mountains  afford  a  suitable 
pasturage  for  sheep.  But  this  introduces  a  prosaic  touch  into  the 
metaphor.  The  meaning  is  that  instead  of  being  kept  in  the  green 
pastures,  beside  the  still  waters,  they  have  been  sent  out  on  the 
bleak  mountains,  where  grass  is  scarce,  where  movement  is  diffi- 
cult and  sometimes  dangerous,  and  where  they  can  easily  be  lost. 
They  wander  from  mountain  to  mountain,  vainly  seeking  to  better 
their  lot,  and  cannot  find  their  way  back  to  the  pastures  from  which 
they  have  strayed.     Cf.  xxiii.  i  ff.,  Ezek.  xxxiv. 

*7.  The  verse  is  an  echo  of  ii.  3,  where  we  read  '  all  that  devour 
him  shall  be  held  guilty.'  Here  Israel's  enemies  devour  him,  and 
say  *We  are  not  guilty,'  as  Iheir  words  should  be  rendered  to 
retain  the  correspondence  with  ii.  3.  Cf.  also  Zech.  xi.  5,  which 
apparently  imitates  our  passage. 

the  habitation  of  juBtioe.  This  description  of  Yahweh  as 
'the  homestead  of  righteousness'  is  peculiar,  and  apparently  due 
to  a  misunderstanding  of  xxxi.  23,  where  in  the  Hebrew  the  words 
immediately  follow,  though  they  do  not  stand  in  apposition  to 
'Yahweh,'  but  are  a  designation  of  Jerusalem. 

even  the  IMBJi.  The  words  are  very  awkward  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  should  be  omitted,  with  the  LXX. 

8.  The  writer  exhorts  the  Jews  to  leave  Babylon  in  haste, 
echoing  Isa.  xlviii.  20;  but  he  employs  an  original  metaphor.  As 
the  he-goats  push  to  the  front  to  pass  through  the  gate  when  it  is 
opened,  before  the  rest  of  the  flock,  so  let  the  Jews  be  the  first  to 
leave  ;  other  peoples  will  follow  their  example. 

9.  The  reason  for  the  exhortation  to  escape  with  speed  ;  the 
northern  nations  are  being  incited  to  attack  Babylon. 

II  S 


258  JEREMIAH  50.  10-13.    S 

taken  :  their  arrows  shall  be  as  of  ^  an  expert  mighty  man ; 

10  ^  none  shall  return  in  vain.    And  Chaldea  shall  be  a  spoil : 

1 1  all  that  spoil  her  shall  be  satisfied,  saith  the  Lord.  Because 
ye  are  glad,  because  ye  rejoice,  O  ye  that  plunder  mine 
heritage,  because  ye  are  wanton  as  an  heifer  c  that  treadeth 

12  out  the  corn^  and  neigh  as  strong  horses;  your  mother 
shall  be  sore  ashamed ;  she  that  bare  you  shall  be  con- 
founded :   behold,  she  shall  be  the  hindermost  of  the 

13  nations,  a  wilderness,  a  dry  land,  and  a  desert.     Because 

*  Or,  according  to  another  reading,  a  mighty  man  that  ntaketh 
childless  ^  +0r,  that  returneth  not  '^  fOr,  at  grass 

expert  mighty  man.  This  is  preferable  to  the  margin,  which 
presupposes  a  slightly  different  vocalization. 

none  ...  in  vain  :  i.e.  the  arrows  all  strike  their  mark.  But 
since  arrows  do  not  *  return '  as  the  sword  does,  after  doing  execu- 
tion, to  its  sheath  (2  Sam.  i.  22),  it  is  better  to  adopt  the  margin, 
taking  the  reference  to  be  to  the  warrior,  but  rendering  *  that  re- 
turneth not  empty,'  i.  e.  the  warrior  wins  great  spoil,  as  the  next 
verse  says. 

11.  Because.  This  rendering  yields  the  sense  that  the  punish- 
ment on  Babylon  described  in  12  is  due  to  the  exultation  of  the 
Babylonians  over  the  spoiling  of  Judah.  But  it  is  better  to  render 
'Though,'  i.e.  in  spite  of  their  affluence  and  luxury  they  shall 
be  brought  low.  There  is  a  suggestion  that  the  wealth  which 
makes  their  riotous  living  possible  is  gained  by  plunder  of  other 
nations,  Israel  of  course  being  singled  out  for  special  mention. 

that  treadeth  out  the  corn.  This  follows  the  punctuation  of 
the  Hebrew  text ;  the  meaning  is  that  the  cattle  engaged  in 
threshing  could  eat  their  fill  since  they  were  unmuzzled  (Deut. 
XXV.  4),  and,  as  we  see  clearly  from  Hos.  x.  11,  the  work  of  tread- 
ing out  the  corn  was  pleasanter  than  ploughing  with  a  rider  on  the 
back.  The  marginal  rendering  is  that  of  the  LXX  and  Vulgate  ;  it 
presupposes  a  slightly  diflferent  punctuation.  The  verb  rendered 
'  ye  are  wanton  '  occurs  also  in  Mai.  iii.  20  (E. V.  iv.  2),  '  and  gambol 
as  calves  of  the  stall.'  It  suits  calves  better  than  an  heifer,  and  we 
should  probably  slightly  alter  the  Hebrew  and  read  '  as  calves  at 
grass,'  which  is  presupposed  by  the  LXX.  For  '  neigh '  cf.  v.  8, 
where,  however,  it  is  metaphorical. 

12.  your  mother  :  i.  e.  Babylon:  the  city  is  regarded  as  mother 
of  the  inhabitants. 

a  wilderness  .  .  .  desert :  cf.  ii.  6,  li.  43. 

13.  See  xviii.  i6,  xix.  8,  xxv.  9,  11,  xlix.  17. 


JEREMIAH  50.  14-1S.     S  259 

of  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  it  shall  not  be  inhabited,  but  it 
shall  be  wholly  desolate  :  every  one  that  goeth  by  Babylon 
shall  be  astonished,  and  hiss  at  all  her  plagues.     Set  14 
yourselves  in  array  against  Babylon  round  about,  all  ye 
that  bend  the  bow ;  shoot  at  her,  spare  no  arrows :  for 
she  hath  sinned  against  the  Lord.     Shout  against  her  15 
round  about ;  she  hath  ^  submitted  herself;  her  bulwarks 
are   fallen,  her  walls  are   thrown  down :   for  it  is   the 
vengeance  of  the  Lord  ;  take  vengeance  upon  her ;  as  she 
hath  done,  do  unto  her.     Cut  off  the  sower  from  Babylon,  16 
and  him  that  handleth  the  sickle  in  the  time  of  harvest : 
for  fear  of  the  oppressing  sword  they  shall  turn  every  one 
to  his  people,  and  they  shall  flee  every  one  to  his  own 
land. 

Israel  is  a  scattered  sheep;  the  lions  have  driven  him  17 
away  :  first  the  king  of  Assyria  hath  devoured  him ;  and 
last  this  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon  hath  broken  his 
bones.     Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  18 

*  Heb.  given  her  hand. 

14.  Once  more  the  foe  is  incited  against  Babylon:  cf.  9,  wliere 
also  the  arrows  are  specially  mentioned ;  cf.  Isa.  xiii.  18, 

15.  submitted  herself:  probably  the  correct  sense  ;  the  margin 
gives  the  literal  rendering. 

bulwarks.   The  word  occurs  here  only  ;  its  sense  is  disputed, 
but  the  R.V.  is  probably  right  in  the  main. 

16.  Agriculture  is  at  an  end  in  Babylonia,  and  the  foreign  resi- 
dents flee  back  to  their  country  for  fear  of  the  foe  (Isa.  xiii.  14). 
The  two  halves  of  the  verse  seem  to  have  no  connexion. 

17.  sheep.  The  term  is  probably  collective.  Cf.  6,  but  here 
the  point  is  not  simply  that  the  flock  has  lost  its  way,  but  that  it 
has  fallen  a  victim  to  the  lions.  Assyria  devoured  the  flesh,  and 
then,  to  consummate  the  destruction,  Babylon  has  gnawed  the 
bones.  The  reference  is  to  the  captivity  of  the  Ten  Tribes  and 
the  oppression  of  Judah  by  Assyria,  and  the  deportation  of  Judah 
to  Babylon. 

18.  This  verse  certainly  suggests  that  the  Babylonian  empire 
had  not  been  overthrown.  Still  the  date  of  the  prophecy  cannot 
be  settled  on  this  ground  ;  it  is  written  from  Jeremiah's  stand- 
point. 

S  2 


26o  JEREMIAH  50.  19-24.     S 

of  Israel :  Behold,  I  will  punish  the  king  of  Babylon  and 

19  his  land,  as  I  have  punished  the  king  of  Assyria.  And 
I  will  bring  Israel  again  to  his  ^  pasture,  and  he  shall  feed 
on  Carmel  and  Bashan,  and  his  soul  shall  be  satisfied  upon 

20  the  hills  of  Ephraim  and  in  Gilead.  In  those  days,  and 
in  that  time,  saith  the  Lord,  the  iniquity  of  Israel  shall 
be  sought  for,  and  there  shall  be  none ;  and  the  sins  of 
Judah,  and  they  shall  not  be  found :  for  I  will  pardon 
them  whom  I  leave  as  a  remnant. 

21  Go  up  against  the  land  of  ^  Merathaim,  even  against  it, 
and  against  the  inhabitants  of  °  Pekod  :  slay  and  ^  utterly 
destroy  after  them,  saith  the  Lord,  and  do  according  to  all 

23  that  I  have  commanded  thee.     A  sound  of  battle  is  in 

23  the  land,  and  of  great  destruction.  How  is  the  hammer 
of  the  whole  earth  cut  asunder   and   broken !   how  is 

24  Babylon  become  a  desolation  among  the  nations  !     I  have 

*  Or, /old     ^  That  is,  Double  rebellion.      °  That  is,  Visitation. 
^  Heb.  devote. 

19.  Cf.  Mic.  vii.  14.  Israel  is  brought  back  from  the  death 
described  in  17,  and  returns  to  its  own  '  homestead,'  i.  e.  Palestine, 
where  it  finds  abundant  sustenance  on  the  richest  pastures. 

20.  Cf.  xxxi.  34,  Mic.  vii.  t8. 

21.  Merathaim :  probably  Mat  Marratim,  i.  e.  South  Babylonia, 
but  vocalized  in  this  way  in  the  Hebrew  to  suggest  the  sense 
'  Double  rebellion  '  (or  possibly  '  Double  bitterness ').  *  Double '  is 
probably  simply  an  intensive,  implying  that  the  land  had  been 
exceptionally  rebellious,  not  that  it  had  been  rebellious  in  two 
different  ways.  No  people  is  named  as  the  instrument  of  ven- 
geance ;  Giesebrecht  suggests  *  Elam '  in  place  of  the  awkward 
*  even  against  it'  {^dleyhd). 

Pekod  similarly  suggests  the  sense  'Visitation  '  or  '  Punish- 
ment.' It  is  the  name  of  a  Babylonian  people,  the  Pukudu ;  cf. 
Ezek.  xxiii.  23. 

after  them  is  rather  strange  ;  it  is  omitted  in  the  LXX,  and 
.  may  be  due  to  dittography.     But  we  might,  with  a  slight  altera- 
tion, read  'the  residue  of  them  '  (so  Giesebrecht). 

23.  the  hammer :  cf.  li.  20-23.  Cf.  Charles  Martel ;  some 
would  add  Judas  Maccabaeus,  though  the  connexion  of  the  latter 
word  with  the  Hebrew  word  for  '  hammer '  is  questionable. 


JEREMIAH  50.  25-29.     S  261 

laid  a  snare  for  thee,  ^nd  thou  art  also  taken,  O  Babylon, 
and  thou  wast  not  aware  ;  thou  art  found,  and  also  caught, 
because  thou  hast  striven  against  the  Lord.     The  Lord  25 
hath  opened  his  armoury,  and  hath  brought  forth  the 
weapons  of  his  indignation :  for  the  Lord,  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  hath  a  work  to  do  in  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans. 
Come  against  her  ^  from  the  utmost  border,  open  her  l^  store-  26 
houses :  cast  her  up  as  heaps,  and  ^  destroy  her  utterly  : 
let  nothing  of  her  be  left.     Slay  all  her  bullocks  ;  let  them  37 
go  down  to  the  slaughter  :  woe  unto  them  !  for  their  day 
is  come,  the  time  of  their  visitation.     The  voice  of  them  28 
that  flee  and  escape  out  of  the  land  of  Babylon,  to  declare 
in  Zion  the  vengeance  of  the  Lord  our  God,  the  vengeance 
of  his  temple.    Call  together  tithe  archers  against  Babylon,  29 
all  them  that  bend  the  bow ;   camp  against  her  round 
about;  let  none  thereof  escape :  recompense  her  according 
to  her  work ;  according  to  all  that  she  hath  done,  do  unto 
her :  for  she  hath  been  proud  against  the  Lord,  against 

*  fOi")  from  every  quartet'  ^  fOr,  granaries 

^  Heb.  devote  her.  ^  Or,  many 

26.  The  spoilers  are  invited  to  come  from  every  quarter,  to 
open  her  granaries.  The  following  clause  *  cast  her  up  as  heaps ' 
is  difficult  ;  the  meaning  is  taken  to  be  as  heaps  of  corn,  but  the 
contents  of  the  granaries  are  not  cast  up  as  heaps  of  corn,  since 
they  are  heaps  of  corn.  Cornill  follows  Aquila  in  reading  'as 
heapers  up  '  (of  sheaves).  The  mention  of '  devotion,'  i.  e.  the  ban, 
in  the  next  clause,  shows  that  Deut.  xiii.  16  is  in  the  writer's 
mind,  according  to  which  an  idolatrous  city  is  to  be  placed  under  the 
ban,  its  inhabitants  and  cattle  destroyed,  and  all  its  spoil  heaped  up 
in  the  midst  of  the  street  and  consumed  by  fire. 

27.  bullocks :  figurative  for  her  young  warriors  rather  than 
her  magnates  :  cf.  Isa.  xxxiv.  7. 

28.  Zion  is  in  existence  at  the  time.  The  closing  words,  *  the 
vengeance  of  the  Temple,'  mean  the  vengeance  for  its  destruction 
by  Nebuchadnezzar.  They  may  have  been  inserted  here  from  li. 
II,  since  they  are  absent  in  the  LXX. 

29.  For  the  archers  cf.  14,  and  for  the  close  of  the  verse  Isa. 
xxxvii.  33. 


262  JEREMIAH  50.  30-36.     S. 

30  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  Therefore  shall  her  young  men 
fall  in  her  streets,  and  all  her  men  of  war  shall  be  brought 

31  to  silence  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord.  Behold,  I  am 
against  thee,  *^0  thou  proud  one,  saith  the  Lord,  the 
Lord  of  hosts :  for  thy  day  is  come,  the  time  that  I  will 

3  2  visit  thee.  And  ^  the  proud  one  shall  stumble  and  fall, 
and  none  shall  raise  him  up :  and  I  will  kindle  a  fire  in 
his  cities,  and  it  shall  devour  all  that  are  round  about 
him. 

33  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts :  The  children  of  Israel 
and  the  children  of  Judah  are  oppressed  together :  and 
all  that  took  them  captives  hold  them  fast ;  they  refuse 

34  to  let  them  go.  Their  redeemer  is  strong ;  the  Lord  of 
hosts  is  his  name  :  he  shall  throughly  plead  their  cause, 
that  he  may  give  rest  to  the  earth,  and  disquiet  the  inhabi- 

35  tants  of  Babylon.  A  sword  is  upon  the  Chaldeans,  saith 
the  Lord,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Babylon,  and  upon 

36  her  princes,  and  upon  her  wise  men.     A  sword  is  upon 

"  fHeb.  O  Pride.  ^  fHeb.  Pride. 

30.  See  xlix.  26,  from  which  it  is  repeated.  Graf  took  it  to  be 
a  quotation  written  on  the  margin  here,  and  mistakenly  inserted 
in  the  text  ;  but  his  view  is  not  generally  accepted. 

31,  32.  The  margins  would  perhaps  have  been  better  :  'Pride'  is 
used  as  a  proper  name  for  Babylon,  here  and  in  the  next  verse. 
In  these  verses  xxi.  13,  14  are  clearly  before  the  writer's  mind. 
For  the  close  of  31  cf  27*',  for  32*  of.  Amos  v.  2. 

33.  The  association  of  the  northern  tribes  with  Judah  is  curious, 
since  it  was  the  Assyrians  who  carried  away  the  former  into  cap- 
tivity.    For  the  close  of  the  verse  cf.  Isa.  xiv.  17. 

34.  The  earth  is  to  be  at  peace  by  the  discomfiture  of  the  Baby- 
lonians who  have  so  long  disturbed  its  rest :  cf.  Isa.  xiv.  5-8,  16. 

Their  redeemer  is  strong :  cf.  Prov.  xxiii.  11  ;  Isa.  xliii.  14, 
xlvii.  4. 

35.  We  should  perhaps  render  '  Sword,  be  upon  the  Chaldeans  !' 
and  similarly  throughout  the  passage. 

36.  boasters.  The  reference  is  generally  taken  to  be  to  the  lying 
prophets  and  diviners.  P.  Haupt,  with  a  slight  correction,  reads 
a  Babylonian  word  meaning  'diviners.' 


JEREMIAH  50.  37-40.     S  263 

the  *  boasters,  and  they  shall  dote  :  a  sword  is  upon  her 
mighty  men,  and  they  shall  be  dismayed.     A  sword  is  37 
upon  their  horses,  and  upon  their  chariots,  and  upon  all 
the  mingled  people  that  are  in  the  midst  of  her,  and  they 
shall  become  as  women :  a  sword  is  upon  her  treasures, 
and  they  shall  be  robbed.     A  drought  is  upon  her  waters,  38 
and  they  shall  be  dried  up :  for  it  is  a  land  of  graven 
images,  and  they  are  mad  upon  ^  idols,     c  Therefore  the  39 
wild  beasts  of  the  desert  with  the  <^  wolves  shall  dwell  there, 
and  the  ostriches  shall  dwell  therein  :  and  it  shall  be  no 
more  inhabited  for  ever ;  neither  shall  it  be  dwelt  in  from 
generation  to  generation.    As  when  God  overthrew  Sodom  4° 
and  Gomorrah  and  the  neighbour  cities  thereof,  saith  the 
Lord  ;  so  shall  no  man  dwell  there,  neither  shall  any  son 

*  Heb.  boastings.         ^  Heb.  terrors.         •=  See  Isa.  xiii.  21,  22 
^  Heb.  howling  creatures. 

37.  the  mingrled  people :  see  xxv.  20.  Generally  it  is  thought 
that  foreign  soldiers  hired  by  Babylon  are  intended.  Cheyne 
thinks  of  '  the  Arabian  population  in  Babylonia '  {Enc.  Bib.  3099). 

38.  dronght.  The  word  in  the  unpointed  text  is  the  same  as 
that  used  for  *■  sword  '  in  the  rest  of  the  passage  ;  and  we  should 
probably  render  it  *  sword  '  here.  The  present  pointing  seems  to 
be  due  to  the  feeling  that  *  sword  '  was  incongruous  in  this  context, 
whereas  'drought'  was  suitable.  But  the  words  are  not  to  be 
pressed  with  prosaic  literalism  ;  and  the  symmetry  of  the  passage 
is  disturbed  if  '  drought '  is  substituted  for  '  sword.' 

and  they  are  mad  upon  idols :  rather  *  and  with  idols  do  they 
make  themselves  mad  ; '  but  the  Versions  read,  with  different  point- 
ing, '  and  they  boast  themselves  of  idols,'  as  in  Ps.  xcvii.  7.  The 
*  idols '  are  properly 'Terrors,'  the  hideous  figures  worshipped  by 
the  people. 

39.  40.  Now  follows  a  passage  which,  like  Isa.  xxxiv.  9-17,  is 
based  on  Isa.  xiii.  19-22.  The  second  verse  is  practically  identi- 
cal with  xlix.  18.  The  ruins  of  a  city  are  to  this  day  avoided  by 
the  Bedawin,  who  believe  that  they  are  the  haunt  not  of  wild 
animals  alone  but  of  uncanny  creatures.  In  this  passage  the  latter 
seem  to  be  absent.  '  The  wild  beasts  of  the  desert '  may  be  the 
correct  rendering  ;  some  translate  *  wild  cats  '  (so  Bochart).  For 
'  wolves  '  some  prefer  *  jackals.' 


264  JEREMIAH  50.  41— 51.  i.     S 

41  of  man  sojourn  therein.  ^  Behold,  a  people  cometh  from 
the  north  ;  and  a  great  nation,  and  many  kings  shall  be 

42  stirred  up  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth.  They 
lay  hold  on  bow  and  spear ;  they  are  cruel,  and  have  no 
mercy ;  their  voice  roareth  like  the  sea,  and  they  ride 
upon  horses ;  every  one  set  in  array,  as  a  man  to  the 

43  battle,  against  thee,  O  daughter  of  Babylon.  The  king 
of  Babylon  hath  heard  the  fame  of  them,  and  his  hands 
wax  feeble :  anguish  hath  taken  hold  of  him,  and  pangs 

44  as  of  a  woman  in  travail.  ^  Behold,  he  shall  come  up 
like  a  lion  from  the  pride  of  Jordan  against  the  strong 
habitation  :  but  I  will  suddenly  make  them  run  away  from 
her;  and  whoso  is  chosen,  him  will  I  appoint  over  her  : 
for  who  is  like  me  ?  and  who  will  appoint  me  a  time  ? 
and  who  is  the  shepherd  that  will  stand  before  me  ? 

45  Therefore  hear  ye  the  counsel  of  the  Lord,  that  he  hath 
taken  against  Babylon  ;  and  his  purposes,  that  he  hath 
purposed  against  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans  :  Surely  they 
shall  drag  them  away,  even  the  little  ones  of  the  flock; 
surely  he  shall  make  their  habit9,tion  desolate  with  them. 

46  At  the  noise  of  the  taking  of  Babylon  the  earth  trembleth, 
and  the  cry  is  heard  among  the  nations. 

51      Thus  saith  the  Lord  :  Behold,  I  will  raise  up  against 

^  See  ch.  vi.  22-24.  ^  See  ch,  xlix.  19-21. 

41-43.  These  verses  are  copied,  with  trifling  alterations  and 
necessary  adjustment  to  Babylon,  from  vi.  22-24. 

44-46.  These  verses  are  taken  from  xlix.  19-21,  with  necessary 
changes  due  to  the  change  in  reference  from  Edom  to  Babylon  and 
some  other  alterations.     See  the  notes  on  that  passage. 

46.  among  the  nations.  The  noise  of  Edom's  fall  is  heard  in  the 
Red  Sea  ;  that  of  Babylon's  fall  *  among  the  nations.' 

li.  1.  Zieb-kaniai.  The  meaning  is  explained  in  the  margin 
('  heart '  means  '  centre ' )  ;  the  cypher  is  Atbash,  for  which  see  notes 
on  XXV.  26.     Since  the  LXX  read  *  Kasdim,'  i.  e.  Chaldea,  it  is 


JEREMIAH  51.  2-5.     S  265 

Babylon,  and  against  them  that  dwell  in  ^Leb-kamai, 
a  destroying  wind.      And    I  will   send   unto   Babylon  2 
^  strangers,  that  shall  fan  her ;  and  they  shall  empty  her 
land :  for  in  the  day  of  trouble  they  shall  be  against  her 
round  about,     c  Let  not  the  archer  bend  his  bow,  and  let  3 
him  not  lift  himself  up  in  his  coat  of  mail :  and  spare  ye 
not  her  young  men;  ^ destroy  ye  utterly  all  her  host. 
And  they  shall  fall  down  slain  in  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  4 
and  thrust  through  in  her  streets.      For  Israel  is  not  5 

*  That  is,  The  heart  of  them  that  rise  up  against  me.  According 
to  ancient  tradition,  a  cypher  for  Casdini,  that  is,  Chaldea. 
^  ^i^Or,  fanners  *^  Or,  as  otherwise  read,  Against  him  that 
bendeth  let  the  archer  bend  his  bow,  and  against  him  that  Itfteth  himself 
up  &c.  ^  Heh.  devote  ye  all  &c.  -:-  —  1. ;..:;  -i  .. 
■        )  :  ■•■JirJc.ti  '.r,i\yr'..it'  

probable  that  this  was  the  original  text,  and  that  the  substitution 
of  •  Leb-kamai '  originated  in  an  ingenious  marginal  gloss. 

a  destroying'  wind.    A  comparison  with  1 1  suggests  that  we 
should  render,  with  most  recent  scholars, '  the  spirit  of  a  destroyer.' 

2.  strangers.  The  margin  '  fanners  '  is  better,  since  the  noun 
thus  corresponds  with  the  verb,  and  this  sense,  which  requires 
simply  a  slight  change  in  the  pointing,  is  adopted  by  the  Syriac 
and  Vulgate.     The  metaphor  is  taken  from  the  winnowing  of  corn. 

3.  The  text  is  uncertain  and  probably  corrupt.  The  rendering 
in  R.V,  text  is  preferable  to  that  in  the  margin  ;  the  meaning  is,  Let 
the  armies  of  Babylon  make  no  resistance  to  the  enemy.  But  this 
does  not  suit  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  where  the  enemy  is 
addressed.  Various  suggestions  have  been  made  to  cure  the  cor- 
ruption ;  none  is  quite  satisfactory.  The  simplest  is  that  of  Cornill, 
that  the  negatives  should  be  omitted ;  the  words  will  then  have 
reference  to  the  assault  of  the  enemy  on  Babylon.  It  is  of  course 
a  precarious  emendation,  though  supported  by  the  LXX. 

4.  Cf.  Isa.  xiii.  15,  Ezek.  xxviii.  23,  Lam.  iv.  9. 

5.  This  is  a  difficult  verse ;  Graf  thought  that  it  must  have  been 
inserted  by  another  hand,  on  account  of  the  lack  of  connexion 
with  the  context.  The  word  rendered  'forsaken'  is  literally 
'  widowed '  (cf.  Isa.  liv.  4) ;  but  strangely  the  masculine  is  used, 
whereas  elsewhere  Yahweh  is  the  husband,  Israel  the  wife.  The 
second  half  of  the  verse  is  also  difficult.  By  '  their  land  '  it  seems 
as  if  the  land  of  Israel  and  Judah  is  meant,  the  sense  being  that 
Yahweh  has  not  forsaken  them  though  their  guilt  might  well  have 
caused  Him  to  do  so.     But  the  Hebrew,  especially  in  view  of  1.  29, 


266  JEREMIAH  51.  6,7.     S 

forsaken,  nor  Judah,  of  his  God,  of  the  Lord  of  hosts ; 
though  their  land  is  full  of  guilt  against  the  Holy  One  of 

6  Israel.  Flee  out  of  the  midst  of  Babylon,  and  save  every 
man  his  life ;  be  not  cut  off  in  her  iniquity  :  for  it  is  the 
time  of  the  Lord's  vengeance ;  he  will  render  unto  her 

7  a  recompence.  Babylon  hath  beert  a  golden  cup  in  the 
Lord's  hand,  that  made  all  the  earth  drunken:  the  nations 
have  drunk  of  her  wine ;  therefore  the  nations  are  mad. 


favours  the  reference  to  Babylonia,  and  we  should  in  that  case 
substitute  '  but '  for  '  though.'  If,  however,  *  their  land '  means 
Babylonia,  the  two  halves  of  the  verse  seem  to  be  in  their  wrong 
order,  and  5^  should  follow  4,  and  the  word  rendered  *  though  * 
should  bear  its  usual  sense  •  for '  (so  Cornill).  Verse  5*  still 
remains  somewhat  isolated  ;  Cornill  thinks  that  a  couplet  has  fallen 
out  after  it,  and  suggests  that  it  may  have  run  as  in  Isa.  liv.  5, 
'  But  his  creator  is  his  husband,  and  his  redeemer  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel.* 

6.  The  people  to  whom  this  is  addressed  are  not  named  ;  they 
might  be  the  foreign  residents  generally,  but  a  reference  to  45, 
where  the  verse  is  largely  repeated,  favours  the  view  that  the  Jews 
are  intended,  as  in  1.  6  and  the  Deutero-Isaianic  parallels  Isa.  xlviii. 
20,  Hi.  12.  The  reason  for  flight  is  that  they  may  not  be  involved 
in  the  overthrow  of  Babylon  :  cf.  Rev.  xviii.  4.  For  the  latter  part 
of  the  verse  cf.  1.  15,  Isa.  xxxiv.  8,  lix.  18,  Ixiii.  4. 

*7.  The  passage  recalls  the  vision  of  the  cup  in  xxv.  But  the 
resemblance  is  superficial.  There  the  cup  was  that  of  Yahweh's 
fury.  Babylon  might  no  doubt  be  called  a  cup  in  Yahweh's  hand, 
in  the  sense  that  she  was  His  instrument  in  the  execution  of  judge- 
ment, just  as  Assyria  was  the  rod  of  His  anger  (Isa.  x.  5).  But 
here  the  idea  is  rather  of  her  luxury  and  sinfulness,  which  have 
exerted  a  baneful  influence  on  the  nations.  The  thought  is  there- 
fore quite  parallel  to  that  in  Rev,  xvii.  4,  which  is  based  on  this 
passage,  and  Nah.  iii.  4.  Only  we  should  omit  *  in  the  Lord's 
hand '  as  an  insertion  under  the  influence  of  xxv.  15,  16  ;  since 
Yahweh  can  hardly  have  been  represented  as  using  Babylon  to 
demoralize  the  nations.  The  epithet  'golden,'  on  the  other  hand, 
IS  not  to  be  struck  out  on  the  ground  that  a  metal  cup  is  not  broken 
by  a  fall  (8).  It  is  deliberately  introduced  to  suggest  the  seductive 
luxury  of  Babylon,  and  the  subject  in  8  is  '  Babylon  '  ;  the  meta- 
phor of  the  cup  is  still  in  the  author's  mind,  but  by  substituting  the 
literal  for  the  figurative,  he  avoids  the  incongruity  of  representing 
the  golden  cup  as  broken. 


JEREMIAH  51.  8-11.     S  267 

Babylon  is  suddenly  fallen  and  destroyed  :  howl  for  her ;  8 
take  balm  for  her  pain,  if  so  be  she  may  be  healed.     We  9 
would  have  healed  Babylon,  but  she  is  not  healed :  forsake 
her,  and  let  us  go  every  one  into  his  own  country  :  for  her 
judgement  reacheth  unto  heaven,  and  is  lifted  up  even  to 
the  skies.  The  Lord  hath  brought  forth  our  righteousness :  ic 
come,  and  let  us  declare  in  Zion  the  work  of  the  Lord 
our  God.      Make  «•  sharp  the  arrows  ;   ^  hold  firm  the  1 1 
»  fOr,  brig/it    Heb.  clean.  ^  Heb.///. 

8.  The  opening  of  the  verse  is  derived  from  Isa.  xxi.  9.  The 
latter  part  introduces  a  new  metaphor  indicating  Babylon's 
desperate  condition:  cf.  viii.  22,  xxx.  12, 13,  and  especially  xlvi.  11. 
The  words  are  not  spoken  with  sympathy  but  with  triumphant 
i  rony. 

9.  Since  the  speakers  in  10  are  the  Jews,  it  is  natural  to  sup- 
pose that  they  are  the  speakers  in  this  verse.  But  then  we  have 
the  strange  assertion  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  that  they  would 
have  healed  Babylon,  which  is  quite  irreconcilable  with  the  attitude 
of  the  Jewish  captives.  Nor  do  the  words  '  let  us  go  every  one 
into  his  own  country '  suit  the  Jews,  but  must  be  spoken  by  exiles 
from  different  countries.  To  strike  out  the  clause  or  part  of  it  is 
arbitrary.  We  must  then  assume  that  the  speakers  are  foreign 
residents  in  Babylon  and  presumably  not  captives,  since  the  latter 
would  hail  the  downfall  of  the  oppressor.  They  answer  the 
ironical  invitation  at  the  end  of  8.  They  have  been  able  to  find 
no  cure,  and  must  abandon  her  to  her  fate,  since  her  guilt  and  her 
punishment  mount  to  the  skies. 

10.  If  the  view  taken  in  the  preceding  note  is  correct,  this 
verse  cannot  continue  the  utterance  in  9,  in  spite  of  the  apparent 
links  between  the  two — the  contrast  between  '  her  judgement '  and 
'our  righteousness,'  and  the  parallel  between  'forsake  her,  and 
let  us  go  '  and  '  come,  and  let  us  declare.'  The  first  clause  means 
that  Yahweh  has  vindicated  the  Jews,  put  them  in  the  right,  by 
the  overthrow  of  Babylon. 

11.  The  exhortations  in  this  verse  and  the  next  arc  addressed  to 
the  enemy.  The  first  clause  comes  in  strangely,  the  second  clause 
carries  on  the  thought  of  10,  while  the  first  clause  would  be  more 
in  place  in  connexion  with  the  other  preparations  for  conflict 
mentioned  in  12,  or  in  27  to  which  Cornill  transfers  it.  The 
arrows  are  to  be  polished  (cf.  Isa.  xlix.  2},  so  that  they  may  pierce 
their  victims  more  easily.  The  rendering  '  hold  firm  the  shields ' 
is  dubious.    The  verb,  as  the  margin  says,  means  *  fill,'  so  that  the 


268  JEREMIAH  51.  12-14.     S 

a  shields  :  the  Lord  hath  stirred  up  the  spirit  of  the  kings 
of  the  Medes ;  because  his  device  is  against  Babylon,  to 
destroy  it :  for  it  is  the  vengeance  of  the  Lord,  the  ven- 

12  geance  of  his  temple.  Set  up  a  standard  against  the  walls 
of  Babylon,  make  the  watch  strong,  set  the  watchmen, 
prepare  the  ambushes :  for  the  Lord  hath  both  devised 
and  done  that  which  he  spake  concerning  the  inhabitants 

13  of  Babylon.  O  thou  that  dwellest  upon  many  waters, 
abundant  in  treasures,  thine  end  is  come,  the  measure  of 

14  thy  b  covetousness.     The  Lord  of  hosts  hath  sworn  by 

^  Or,  suits  of  armour  ^  Or,  dishonest  gain 

sense  is  rather  '  gird  the  shields  closely  to  you.'  Giesebrecht  reads 
a  verb  meaning  to  *  scour'  or  '  polish  '  {mirtu).  Rothstein  suggests 
'anoint'  (cf.  2  Sam.  i.  21).  But  the  translation  'shields'  is  not 
certain ;  W.  E.  Barnes  argues  in  detail  for  the  meaning  *  armour  * 
or  '  equipment '  {Expository  Times,  x.  43-45)  ;  if  his  reasoning  is 
sound  the  margin  'suits  of  armour'  should  be  adopted,  and  no 
emendation  of  the  verb  is  required. 

the  king's  of  tlie  Medes.  The  LXX  reading,  *  the  king  of  the 
Medes'  should  be  substituted.  The  reference  to  the  Medes  seems 
to  have  been  suggested  by  Isa.  xiii.  17. 

for  it  is . . .  temple:  see  on  1.  28 ;  cf.  xlvi.  10, 1.  15 ;  Isa.xxxiv.  8. 

12.  Exhortation  to  begin  the  blockade  of  Babylon  and  set  am- 
buscades, not  merely  to  intercept  any  who  ventured  out  of  the 
city,  or  to  cut  off  stragglers  after  a  sortie,  but  to  take  advantage 
of  a  sortie  to  push  through  the  gates  (cf.  Joshua  viii.  12-19,  Judges 
XX.  29-40).  The  '  watchmen  '  are  not  those  who  are  placed  on  the 
alert  to  see  what  happens,  but  those  who  guard  the  city  closely. 

13.  many  waters:  cf.  1.  38,  Rev.  xvii.  i,  Ps.  cxxxvii.  i.  The 
Euphrates,  the  numerous  canals,  and  the  pools  (cf.  32  marg.)  gave 
the  Babylonians  a  sense  of  their  security,  as  their  rocky  fastnesses 
gave  Edom  (xlix.  16),  and  the  Nile  and  the  canals  gave  No-Amon 
(Nah.  iii.  8). 

the  measure  of  thy  covetousness.  This  clause  has  occa- 
sioned much  discussion  ;  the  word  rendered  '  measure '  means 
*  cubit ; '  while  that  rendered  '  covetousness  '  also  means  '  cutting 
off.'  The  sense  is  that  the  prescribed  limit  of  Babylon's  existence  has 
been  reached,  and  it  will  now  be  cut  off.  The  metaphor  is  taken 
from  weaving,  and  is  best  illustrated  by  Isa.  xxxviii.  12. 

14.  Cf.  Amos  vi.  8.  The  sense  of  the  R.V.  is  that  Yahweh  will 
certainly  fill  Babylon  with  enemies  as  numerous,  rapacious,  and 
destructive  as  locusts.     Another  view  is  that  we  should  translate 


JEREMIAH  51.  15-20.     S  269 

himself,  saying,  Surely  I  will  fill  thee  with  men,  as  with 
the  cankerworm ;  and  they  shall  lift  up  a  shout  against 
thee. 

a  He  hath  made  the  earth  by  his  power,  he  hath  esta-  ^5 
blished  the  world  by  his  wisdom,  and  by  his  understanding 
hath  he  stretched  out  the  heavens  :  when  he  uttereth  his  16 
voice,  there  is  a  tumult  of  waters  in  the  heavens,  and  he 
causeth  the  vapours  to  ascend  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  ; 
he  maketh  lightnings  for  the  rain,  and  bringeth  forth  the 
wind  out  of  his  treasuries.     Every  man  is  become  brutish  1 7 
ajid  is  without  knowledge;    every  goldsmith  is  put  to 
shame  by  his  graven  image  :  for  his  molten  image  is  false- 
hood, and  there  is  no  breath  in  them.     They  are  vanity,  18 
a  work  of  delusion :  in  the  time  of  their  visitation  they 
shall  perish.     The  portion  of  Jacob  is  not  like  these ;  19 
for  he  is  the  former  of  all  things ;  and  Israel  is  the  tribe 
of  his  inheritance  :  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  his  name. 

Thou  art  my  ^  battle  axe  and  weapons  of  war :  and  20 
■^  See  ch.  x.  12-16.  ^  fOr,  niattl 

'  though  I  fill  thee,'  and  explain  that,  be  Babylon's  population  mul- 
titudinous as  the  locusts,  the  shout  of  triumph  will  yet  be  raised 
over  her  by  her  conquerors.  The  *  cankerworm '  seems  to  be  the 
locust  in  its  pupa  stage. 

15-19.  These  verses  repeat,  with  very  trifling  difference,  x. 
12-16,  and  the  notes  on  that  passage  must  be  consulted  for  the 
exegesis.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  it  was  inserted  here, 
where  it  is  quite  irrelevant.  Apparently  it  was  introduced  by  some 
reader  to  substantiate  the  certainty  that  Yahweh's  oath  will  be 
accomplished,  by  asserting  His  omnipotence  and  the  impotence 
of  idols. 

20-23.  In  this  passage,  marked  with  similar  repetition  as 
1-  35-38,  it  is  not  clear  what  power  is  addressed.  But  the  argu- 
ments that  it  is  Babylon  seem  to  be  convincing.  When  the 
interpolation  15-19  has  been  removed,  20-23  connects  with  13,  14, 
in  which  Bab3'lon  is  addressed.  Further,  in  1.  23  Babylon  is  des- 
cribed as  'the  hammer  of  the  whole  earth,'  and  immediately  after 
our  passage  as  a  '  destroying  mountain  .  .  .  which  destroyest  all  the 
earth'  (25^^.  Other  identifications  are  unsuitable,  because  nothing 
hints  that  there  is  a  change  in  the  reference  of  the  second  person. 


27©  JEREMIAH  51.  21-24.     S 

with  thee  will  I  break  in  pieces  the  nations ;  and  with 

21  thee  will  I  destroy  kingdoms  ;  and  with  thee  will  I  break 
in  pieces  the  horse  and  his  rider ;  and  with  thee  will 
I  break  in  pieces  the  chariot  and  him  that  rideth  therein ; 

22  and  with  thee  will  I  break  in  pieces  man  and  woman; 
and  with  thee  will  I  break  in  pieces  the  old  man  and  the 
youth ;  and  with  thee  will  I  break  in  pieces  the  young 

23  man  and  the  maid ;  and  with  thee  will  I  break  in  pieces 
the  shepherd  and  his  flock ;  and  with  thee  will  I  break  in 
pieces  the  husbandman  and  his  yoke  of  oxen  ;  and  with 
thee  will  I  break  in  pieces  ^governors  and  deputies. 

24  And  I  will  render  unto  Babylon  and  to  all  the  inhabitants 
of  Chaldea  all  their  evil  that  they  have  done  in  Zion  in 
your  sight,  saith  the  Lord. 

*  Or,  lieutenants 

The  future  tenses  in  the  R.V.  should  be  changed  into  presents, 
expressing  habitual  action.  Verse  24  favours  to  some  extent  the 
other  view,  but  is  not  incompatible  with  that  adopted. 

20.  battle  axe.  The  word  means  rather  'battle-hammer'  or 
'  club ; '  '  mace  '  would  be  a  good  rendering.  This  formidable 
weapon  was  much  used  by  the  Assyrians,  probably  also  by  the 
Babylonians. 

weapons.    Perhaps,  with  a  change  in  punctuation,  we  should 
read  the  singular. 

23.  g'overnors  and  deputies.  The  same  combination  occurs  in 
Ezek.  xxiii.  6,  12,  23,  where  it  is  rendered  'governors  and  rulers.' 
Both  words  are  of  Assyrian  origin  ;  the  former  might  be  rendered 
'  satraps,'  the  latter  *  viceroys '  (so  Lofthouse  on  Ezek.  xxiii.  6).  The 
use  of  these  terms  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  mace  breaks 
the  magnates  of  the  Babylonian  empire  ;  similar  officials  might  be 
found  in  other  kingdoms. 

24.  But  while  Babylon  is  the  hammer  in  the  hands  of  the 
Almighty,  He  will  recompense  her  for  her  overthrow  of  Zion. 
Such  a  statement  is  out  of  harmony  with  Jeremiah's  point  of 
view.  It  is  true  that  Isaiah  can  speak  of  Assyria  as  the  rod  of 
Yahweh's  anger,  and  yet  announce  that  when  Yahweh  has  chas- 
tised His  people  with  it,  He  will  break  it  and  fling  it  aside.  But 
Assyria  is  not  punished  for  its  mis-handling  of  Judah,  but  for  its 
boastfulness  against  Yahweh  (Isa.  x.  5-15). 

In  your  sight:  to  be  connected  with  *  I  will  render.' 


JEREMIAH  51.  35-27.    S  271 

Behold,  I  am  against  thee,  O  destroying  mountain,  25 
saith   the  Lord,   which  destroyest  all  the    earth  .   and 
I  will  stretch  out  mine  hand  upon  thee,  and  roll  thee 
down   from    the   rocks,    and   will   make   thee   a   burnt 
mountain.     And  they  shall  not  take  of  thee  a  stone  for  26 
a  corner,  nor  a  stone  for  foundations ;  but  thou  shall  be 
desolate  for  ever,  saith  the  Lord.      Set  ye  up  a  standard  27 
in  the  land,  blow  the  trumpet  among  the  nations,^  prepare 
the  nations  against  her,  call  together  against  her  the  king- 
doms of  Ararat,  Minni,  and  Ashkenaz  :  appoint  a  marshal 

*  Heb.  sanctify. 

25.  26.  Since  Babylon  is  situated  in  a  plain,  the  reference  to  it 
as  a  mountain  must  be  metaphorical ;  it  is  so  called  as  lifted  above 
other  countries.  Whether  one  who  was  actually  familiar  with  the 
country  would  have  chosen  a  figurative  designation  whic'i  was 
literally  so  inappropriate  is  questionable.  Probably,  as  Budde 
points  out,  Ezekiel's  prophecy  against  mount  Seir  (Ezek.  xxxv)  is 
before  the  writer's  mind.  The  phrase  '  destroying  mountain ' 
comes  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  13  (see  R.V.  margin).  It  is  natural  to 
think  of  the  '  mountain  '  as  a  volcano.  But  this  is  very  questionable  : 
the  mountain  is  regarded  as  itself  burnt  to  a  cinder,  rather  than  as 
belching  forth  fire,  and  therefore  as  yielding  no  stones  suitable  for 
building,  the  action  of  the  fire  making  the  stones  unfit  for  the  pur- 
pose. The  writer  may  have  thought  of  the  mountain  as  a  great 
mass  of  limestone  (cf.  Isa.  xxxiii.  12),  itself  piled  high  upon  cliffs 
down  which  it  is  cast. 

26.  The  verse  seems  to  be  an  imitation  of  Isa.  xxx.  14. 

27.  Once  more  the  author  begins  a  description  of  the  attack  on 
Babylon. 

Ararat  (Gen.  viii.  4,  2  Kings  xix.  37)  is  the  Assyrian  Urartu 
and  the  Armenian  Ayrarat.  It  embraced  part  of  Armenia,  but  the 
limits  varied :  properly  it  was  in  the  northern  part  of  Armenia, 
north-west  of  Lake  Van.  Minni  is  the  cuneiform  Mannai,  and  is 
placed  by  some  between  Lake  Van  and  Lake  Urumia,  by  others  to 
the  south  or  south-east  of  the  latter.  Ashkenaz  presumably  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  preceding.  It  may  be  inferred  from  Gen.  x. 
3  that  they  were  akin  to  the  Cimmerians.  It  is  often  identified 
with  the  Assyrian  Ashguz ;  the  '  n '  may  be  mistaken  insertion 
in  the  Hebrew,  or  it  may  have  been  in  the  original  word  but  omitted 
in  Assyrian. 

marshal.  The  Hebrew  word  occurs  also  in  Nah.  iii.  17,  there 
also  in  connexion  with  locusts.     It  is  generally  regarded  as  the 


272  JEREMIAH  51.  28-32.     S 

against  her;  cause  the  horses  to  come  up  as  the  rough 

28  cankerworm.  ^  Prepare  against  her  the  nations,  the  kings 
of  the  Medes,  the  governors  thereof,  and  all  the  deputies 

29  thereof,  and  all  the  land  of  his  dominion.  And  the  land 
trembleth  and  is  in  pain :  for  the  purposes  of  the  Lord 
against  Babylon  do  stand,  to  make  the  land  of  Babylon 

30  a  desolation,  without  inhabitant.  The  mighty  men  of 
Babylon  have  forborne  to  fight,  they  remain  in  their  strong 
holds;  their  might  hath  failed;  they  are  become  as 
women:   her  dwelling  places  are  set  on  fire;  her  bars 

31  are  broken.  One  post  shall  run  to  meet  another,  and  one 
messenger  to  meet  another,  to  shew  the  king  of  Babylon 

32  that  his  city  is  taken  on  every  quarter :  and  the  ^  passages 
are  surprised,  and  the  ^  reeds  they  have  burned  with  fire, 
and  the  men  of  war  are  affrighted. 

^  Heh.  sancii^.         ^  Or,  fords         '^  Or ^  marshes     Heh.  pools. 

Assyrian  dup'sarru,  'tablet-writer.'  Here  it  might  mean  a  scribe 
who  had  the  duty  of  enlisting  the  soldiers ;  but  this  does  not  suit 
Nah.  iii.  17,  where  they  are  compared  to  '  swarms  of  grasshoppers,' 
nor  yet  the  present  passage,  since,  as  Graf  pointed  out,  the  term 
should  be  taken  as  a  collective,  parallel  to  the  collective  singular 
rendered  '  horses '  in  the  next  clause.  Some  type  of  troop,  as  he 
says,  seems  to  be  intended. 

the  roug-li  cankerworm :  the  locust  in  its  pupa-stage,  when 
the  wings  are  still  enclosed  in  sheaths  which  stand  out  on  the 
back.     Their  worst  ravages  are  accomplished  in  this  stage. 

28.  Read  '  king '  for  '  kings,'  and  '  his  governors,' '  his  deputies. 
On  these  terms  see  note  on  23. 

30.  A  vivid  description  of  the  capture  of  the  city  now  follows. 

31.  post,  or  'courier,'  literally  'runner.'  The  couriers  and 
newsbearers  meet  each  other  as  they  come  from  all  sides  to  tell 
the  king  that  the  city  is  captured. 

32.  passages:  i.e.  ferries,  not  fords. 

reeds.  As  the  margin  indicates,  the  word  properly  means 
'■  pools,'  but  to  say  that  the  pools  are  burned  is  too  extravagant 
an  hyperbole.  The  text  seems  to  be  corrupt.  Duhm  suggests 
'  defences,'  <  barricades.'  Graetz,  Cheyne  in  the  Pulpit CommenU 
ary,  and  now  Coste,  read  *  palaces,'  Comill  supposes  that  some 
words  have  fallen  out;  similarly  Rothstein. 


JEREMIAH  51.  33-36.     S  273 

For  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  33 
The  daughter  of  Babylon  is  like  a  threshing-floor  at  the 
time  when  it  is  trodden;  yet  a~ little  while,  and  the  time 
of  harvest  shall  come  for  her.    Nebuchadrezzar  the  king  of  34 
Babylon  hath  devoured  ^  me,  he  hath  crushed  ^  me,  he 
hath  made  ^  me  an  empty  vessel,  he  hath  swallowed  ^  me 
up  like  a  dragon,  he  hath  filled  his  maw  with  my  delicates  ; 
he  hath  cast  «■  me  out.     ^  The  violence  done  to  me  and  35 
to  my  flesh  be  upon  Babylon,  shall  the  c  inhabitant  of 
Zion  say;  and,  My  blood  be  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Chaldea,  shall  Jerusalem  say.     Therefore  thus  saith  the  36 

*  Another  reading  is,  its.  ^  Heb.  My  wrong  and  my 

flesh.  •=  Heb.  inhabitress. 

33.  When  the  harvest-time  approaches,  the  threshing-floor  is 
trodden  down  smooth  and  hard,  and  when  the  corn  has  been 
reaped  it  is  threshed  upon  it.  The  metaphor  is  a  fine  one,  but  is 
not  clearly  carried  out.  At  first  Babylon  is  compared  to  the 
threshing-floor  itself ;  as  this  is  trodden  down  flat,  so  it  will  be 
trampled  on  and  levelled  with  the  ground.  A  more  conventional 
metaphor  would  have  been  to  liken  it  to  the  corn  on  the  threshing- 
floor  trampled  by  oxen  who  draw  the  threshing-sledge  over  it :  cf. 
Isa.  xxi.  10,  Amos  i.  3,  Mic.  iv.  13.  This  is  perhaps  suggested  by 
the  last  clause  :  Babylon  is  like  the  corn  which  is  to  be  reaped  and 
then  threshed.  The  sense  of  this  clause,  however,  may  be  that 
Babylon  is  like  a  cornfield,  which  is  soon  to  be  reaped,  stripped 
of  all  its  golden  splendour.  But  whichever  view  be  adopted,  wc 
seem  to  have  two  metaphors  combined. 

thetimeof  liarvest.   We  should  perhaps  read,  with  LXX  and 
Syriac,  'the  harvest,*  or,  with  a  slight  change,  'the  reaper.' 

34.  Israel  recounts  the  injuries  the  king  of  Babylon  has  done 
her.  The  R.V.  rightly  prefers  the  singular  pronoun  'me' 
throughout.  The  reference  in  the  *  empty  vessel  '  is  to  the  loss 
of  all  which  she  has  suffered.  The  king  is  likened  to  the  mythical 
dragon,  for  which  we  may  compare  the  designations  of  the  world- 
empires  in  Isa.  xxvii.  i.  He  has  swallowed  the  people,  and  also 
the  treasures  it  had  formerly  enjoyed. 

cast  me  out.    This  is  the  sense,  it  requires  a  slightly  differ- 
ent pointing  ;  the  verb  as  pointed  means  '  rinsed  me  out.' 

35.  Cf.  Gen.  xvi.  5. 

36.  To  this  invocation  of  vengeance  on  Babylon,  Yahwch 
responds  with  the  assurance  that  He  will  avenge  His  people  upon 

II  T 


274  JEREMIAH  51.  37-43.     S 

Lord  :  Behold,  I  will  plead  thy  cause,  and  take  vengeance 
for  thee ;  and  I  will  dry  up  her  sea,  and  make  her  fountain 

37  dry.  And  Babylon  shall  become  heaps,  a  dwelling  place 
for  jackals,  an   astonishment,  and   an   hissing,  without 

38  inhabitant.     They  shall  roar  together  like  young  lions ; 

39  they  shall  growl  as  lions'  whelps.  When  they  are  heated, 
I  will  make  their  feast,  and  I  will  make  them  drunken, 
that  they  may  rejoice,  and  sleep  a  perpetual  sleep,  and 

40  not  wake,  saith  the  Lord.     I  will  bring  them  down  like 

41  lambs  to  the  slaughter,  like  rams  with  he-goats.  How  is 
^  Sheshach  taken  !  and  the  praise  of  the  whole  earth  sur- 
prised !  how  is  Babylon  become  ^a  desolation  among 

42  the  nations  !     The  sea  is  come  up  upon  Babylon :  she  is 

43  covered  with  the  ^  multitude  of  the  waves  thereof.  Her 
cities  are  become  ^  a  desolation,  a  dry  land,  and  a  desert, 

*  See  ch.  xxv.  26.         ^  Or,  an  astonishment        •=  Or,  tumult 

her.  The  <  sea  '  is  either  the  Euphrates  (called  so  like  the  Nile, 
Isa.  xviii.  2,  xix.  5  ;  Nah.  iii.  8),  or  the  lake  dug  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
In  Herodotus  (I.  185)  we  have  an  account  of  a  lake  built  by 
Nitocris. 

37.  Cf.  ix.  II,  X.  22,  xviii.  16 ;  Isa.  xiii.  22. 

38.  The  Babylonians  are  like  lions  growling  with  satisfaction 
over  their  prey :  cf.  Amos  iii.  4,  Isa.  v.  29. 

39.  Cf.  57.  The  metaphor  glides  from  the  lions  feasting,  to 
men  at  a  banquet,  who  are  overcome  by  wine  and  pass  into  the 
everlasting  sleep 

"When  they  are  heated.  The  sense  is  not  quite  clear  ;  it  is 
generally  taken  to  be  when  they  are  hot  with  desire.  Then  Yahweh 
prepares  their  drinking  banquet.  Giesebrecht  reads  'when  I  am 
hot,'  i.  e.  when  my  wrath  burns. 

rejoice.  This  does  not  suit  the  context.  The  LXX  rendered 
*  be  stupefied.'  This,  as  Giesebrecht,  followed  by  several  scholars, 
thinks,  probably  implies  a  Hebrew  verb  meaning  '  to  faint,'  as  in 
Isa.  li.  20  {y^uUdphii). 

40.  This  verse  is  based  on  Isa.  xxxiv.  6,  7. 

41.  Sheshach:  i.  e.  Babel :  see  note  on  xxv.  26.  It  is  omitted 
in  LXX  and  Syriac. 

42.  The  sea:  not  the  literal  Euphrates,  as  some  take  it,  but  the 
multitudinous  invaders.     Cf.  Isa.  viii.  7,  8. 

43.  Cf.  ii.  6,  1.  12,  40. 


JEREMIAH  51.  44-46.     S  275 

a  land  wherein  no  man  dwclleth,  neither  doth  any  son  of 
man  pass  thereby.  And  I  will  a-do  judgement  upon  Bel  44 
in  Babylon,  and  I  will  bring  forth  out  of  his  mouth  that 
which  he  hath  swallowed  up  ;  and  the  nations  shall  not 
flow  together  any  more  unto  him  :  yea,  the  wall  of  Babylon 
shall  fall. 

My  people,  go  ye  out  of  the  midst  of  her,  and  save  45 
yourselves  every  man  from  the  fierce  anger  of  the  Lord. 
And  let  not  your  heart  faint,  neither  fear  ye  for  the  rumour  46 
that  shall  be  heard  in  the  land ;  for  a  rumour  shall  come 
one  year,  and  after  that  in  another  year  shalUome  a  rumour, 
*  Heb.  visit  upon. 

44.  Bel  (see  note  on  1.  2)  will  be  compelled  to  disgorge  what 
he  has  swallowed  (see  34).  This  is  not  simply  the  wealth  of  the 
nations,  but  the  nations  themselves.  The  passage  is  thus  parallel 
to  the  story  of  the  swallowing  and  vomiting  forth  of  Jonah  by  the 
fish,  which  seems  to  be  a  figurative  description  of  the  exile  and 
return  of  Israel. 

44''-49*.  This  passage  (from  *  yea,  the  wall ')  is  omitted  in 
the  LXX.  Duhm  thinks  that  it  is  a  first  draft  of  49^-53,  which 
was  substituted  for  it  by  the  author  or  the  editor.  Verse  45  is 
parallel  to  50,  and  47  is  largely  repeated  in  52.  Rothstein 
practically  agrees  with  Duhm  ;  but  Cornill  agrees  with  Hitzig 
that  the  omission  in  the  LXX  was  occasioned  by  the  accidental 
passing  from  *  Babylon  shall  fall '  in  44  to  *  Babylon  shall  fall '  in 
49.  And  in  view  of  the  difference  Ijetween  44^-49*  and  49^-53, 
this  is  the  safer  view  to  take. 

the  wall  of  Babylon  shall  fall.  This  is  not  very  appropriate 
in  this  connexion.  Cornill  thinks  that  the  parallelism  requires 
a  reference  to  a  deity,  and  suggests  '  the  Desire  of  Babylon  shall 
fall,'  that  is,  the  chief  goddess  of  Babylon  ;  he  compares  Dan.  xi. 
37,  '  the  desire  of  women,'  which  seems  from  the  context  to  mean 
a  deity,  perhaps  Tammuz. 

45.  Cf.  6;  Isa.  hi.  11. 

46.  The  passage  is  difficult.  The  Hebrew  text  needs  some 
change,  but  the  general  sense  is  given  in  the  R.V.  Moreover  the 
passage  seems  to  suggest,  in  contrast  to  the  general  tenor  of  the 
oracle,  that  year  after  year  may  go  by,  while  one  magnate  wars 
with  another,  and  this  rumour  gives  place  to  that,  and  the  hope  of 
deliverance  seems  to  grow  more  and  more  remote.  But  we  need 
not  assume  that  the  author  expected  a  long  period  to  elapse  in 

r  2 


276  JEREMIAH  51.  47-51.     S 

47  and  violence  in  the  land,  ruler  against  ruler.  Therefore, 
behold,  the  days  come,  that  I  will  do  judgement  upon 
the  graven  images  of  Babylon,  and  her  whole  land  shall 
be  ashamed;  and  all  her  slain  shall  fall  in  the  midst  of  her. 

48  Then  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  and  all  that  is  therein, 
shall  sing  for  joy  over  Babylon ;   for  the  spoilers  shall 

49  come  unto  her  from  the  north,  saith  the  Lord.  ^  As 
Babylon  hath  caused  the  slain  of  Israel  to  fall,  so  at 

50  Babylon  shall  fall  the  slain  of  all  the  ^  land.  Ye  that 
have  escaped  the  sword,  go  ye,  stand  not  still;  re- 
member the  Lord  from  afar,  and  let  Jerusalem  come  into 

51  your  mind.  We  are  ashamed,  because  we  have  heard 
reproach ;  confusion  hath  covered  our  faces  :  for  strangers 

*  Or,  Both  Babylon  is  to  fall,  O  ye  slain  of  Israel,  and  at  &c 
^  fOr,  earth 

such  struggles  and  rumours.  Four  or  five  years  would  be  a  brief 
prelude  to  the  downfall  of  an  empire,  and  yet  it  might  be  a  time 
of  racking  suspense,  intolerably  long  to  live  through  day  by  day. 

47.  This  is  largely  identical  with  52,  and  on  that  ground  deleted 
by  Giesebrecht.  '  Therefore '  is  unsuitable  ;  we  might  read  '  for,' 
the  present  text  having  arisen  from  assimilation  to  52  and  the 
frequency  with  which  *  Therefore '  is  used  with  this  formula. 
Cornill  suggests  'rulers'  instead  of  'graven  images,'  which  he 
thinks  is  also  due  to  52.  It  fits  on  to  the  close  of  46,  and  the  triple 
reference  to  the  punishment  of  Babylon's  gods  in  44,  47,  52  is  thus 
avoided. 

all  her  slain  shall  fall :  i.  e.  her  inhabitants  shall  £sill  slain. 

48.  Cf.  Isa.  xliv.  23  ;    for  48^  cf.  53^ 

49.  The  text  is  difficult.  In  the  former  part  of  the  verse  we 
should  render  (cf.  margin)  *  Babel  also  is  to  fall,  O  ye  slain  of 
Israel.'  But  it  would  be  better,  repeating  a  consonant,  to  read 
'for  the  slain  of  Israel,'  and  continue  '  As  for  Babel  have  fallen  the 
slain  of  all  the  earth.' 

50.  The  Jews,  who  have  escaped  death  at  the  hands  of  the 
Babylonians,  are  Isidden  remember  Yahweh  and  bethink  themselves 
of  Jerusalem,  with  the  intention  of  returning. 

51.  The  reply  of  the  Jews  to  the  exhortation  in  50.  They  are 
exposed  to  reproach  and  covered  with  confusion,  since  foreigners 
have  penetrated  into  the  sacred  places  of  the  Temple  ;  see  note  on^ 
Lam.  i.  10. 


JEREMIAH  0I.52-5S.     S  277 

are  come  into  the  sanctuaries  of  the  Lord's  house.  Where-  52 
fore,  behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will 
do  judgement  upon  her  graven  images ;  and  through  all 
her  land  the  wounded  shall  groan.      Though  Babylon  53 
should  mount  up  to  heaven,  and  though  she  should  fortify 
the  height  of  her  strength,  yet  from  me  shall  spoilers  come 
unto  her,  saith  the  Lord.      The  sound  of  a  cry  from  54 
Babylon,  and  of  great  destruction  from  the  land  of  the 
Chaldeans !  for  the  Lord  spoileth  Babylon,  and  destroyeth  55 
out  of  her  the  great  voice  ;  and  their  waves  roar  like  many 
waters,  the  noise  of  their  voice  is  uttered :  for  the  spoiler  5^ 
is  come  upon  her,  even  upon  Babylon,  and  her  mighty 
men  are  taken,  their  bows  are  broken  in  pieces :  for  the 
Lord  is  a  God  of  recompences,  he  shall  surely  requite. 
And  I  will  make  drunk  her  princes  and  her  wise  men,  her  57 
governors  and  her  deputies,  and  her  mighty  men ;  and 
they  shall  sleep  a  perpetual  sleep,  and  not  wake,  saith  the 
King,  whose  name  is  the  Lord  of  hosts.     Thus  saith  the  58 
Lord  of  hosts:  ^The  broad  walls  of  Babylon  shall  be 

*  Or,  The  ivalls  of  brood  Babylon 

52.  Since  Babylon  has  violated  the  sanctity  of  Yahweh's  house. 
He  will  judge  her  idols.      For  52''  cf.  Ezek.  xxvi.  15, 

53.  Cf.  Isa.  xiv.  12-14,  Hab.  ii.  9,  Obad.  3  ;  for  53^  cf.  48^ 

54.  CL  xlviii.  3,  1.  22. 

55.  Yahweh  spoils  Babylon  and  brings  to  silence  all  its  din ; 
the  foe  sweeps  into  it  like  a  great  sea  (cf.  42),  its  roar  drowning 
the  roar  of  the  doomed  city.     Cf.  vi.  23,  Isa.  xvii.  12. 

56.  The  former  part  of  the  verse  largely  repeats  48'',  ss** ;  for 
the  latter  part  cf.  Isa.  lix.  18. 

57.  This  closely  resembles  39;  for  'her  governors  and  her 
deputies  '  cf.  23,  28. 

58.  walls.  The  singular  should  be  read,  as  in  LXX  and  Vulgate, 
in  agreement  with  the  singular  adjective.  The  wall  of  Babylon 
was  famous  in  antiquity ;  Herodotus  says  that  it  was  '  fifty  royal 
cubits  in  breadth,  and  in  height  two  hundred  '  (I.  178),  but  his 
statement  is  generally  regarded  as  exaggerated.  The  fortifications 
were  actually  deptroj'ed  by  Darius. 


278  JEREMIAH  51.  59.     SB 

utterly  ^  overthrown,  and  her  high  gates  shall  be  burned 
with  fire ;  ^^  and  the  peoples  shall  labour  for  vanity,  and 
the  nations  for  the  fire  ;  and  they  shall  be  weary. 

59      [B]  The  word  which  Jeremiah  the  prophet  commanded 

*  fOr,  made  bare  ^  See  Hab.  ii.  13. 

and  the  peoples  .  .  .  weary.  The  text  should  be  slightly 
altered,  and  we  should  read  at  the  end,  'and  the  nations  shall 
weary  themselves  for  the  fire.'  The  passage  occurs,  except  for 
the  interchange  of  *  vanity '  and  *  fire,'  in  Hab.  ii.  13.  Recent 
scholars  generally  agree  with  Graf  that  in  the  latter  passage  it  is 
a  quotation,  and  that  both  our  passage  and  Hab.  ii.  13  are  derived 
from  the  same  original.  The  point  of  the  quotation  here  is  that 
in  the  overthrow  of  Babylon  we  have  a  fulfilment  of  the  ancient 
saying. 

for  the  fire  :  i.  e.  their  labour  is  all  destined  to  come  to  nought. 

Ii.  59-64.  Jeremiah  Bids  Seraiah  Read  the  Book  of  Babylon's 
Doom,  and  then  Sink  it  in  the  Euphrates. 
Since  in  60''  the  words  written  by  Jeremiah,  which  Seraiah  was 
to  read  and  cast  in  the  Euphrates,  are  apparently  identified  with 
the  preceding  oracle  1.  2 — Ii.  58,  it  is  not  unnatural  that  several 
scholars  should  have  inferred  that  the  story  is  as  fictitious  as  the 
oracle  itself  is  spurious.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  accept 
this  identification,  and  Budde,  followed  by  Cornill  and  Driver, 
argues  forcibly  for  the  historicity  of  the  story,  regarding  the  oracle 
entrusted  to  Seraiah  as  quite  distinct  from  that  which  has  preceded. 
The  reference  to  Seraiah  is  itself  a  strong  support  to  it.  He  was 
the  brother  of  Baruch,  though  this  is  not  emphasized  as  it  would 
have  been  by  a  later  writer  anxious  to  guarantee  his  story  ;  but  we 
learn  it  simply  by  combining  the  account  of  his  ancestry  with  that 
of  Baruch  (xxxii.  12).  It  is  therefore  probable  that  Seraiah  under- 
took a  journey  to  Babylon.  So  much  is  admitted  by  Duhm,  who 
rejects  the  story  as  a  whole.  Whether  Zedekiah  went  to  Babylon 
at  the  same  time  is  uncertain.  The  statement  in  the  Hebrew  text 
that  Seraiah  was  'quartermaster'  does  not  prove  a  personal  visit 
of  the  king  to  Babylon,  though  it  agrees  well  with  it,  since  he 
might  have  acted  in  this  capacity  for  an  embassy.  According  to 
the  LXX,  he  was  '  commissary  of  the  tribute,'  and  went  '  from 
Zedekiah.'  In  view  of  this  uncertainty  in  the  text  we  cannot  feel 
sure  that  the  king  visited  Babylon  at  this  time.  Nevertheless  we 
can  well  understand,  as  Duhm  himself  allows,  in  view  of  the 
political  situation,  why  he  should  visit  Babylon,  since  suspicion 


JEREMIAH  51.  59.     B  279 

Seraiah  the  son  of  Neriah,  the  son  of  Mahseiah,  when  he 

of  complicity  in  the  movement  for  revolt  (xxvii)  might  well  have 
fallen  upon  him  (see  vol.  i,  p.  23,  and  the  Introduction  to  xxvii, 
xxviii).  But  if  Seraiah  went  to  Babj'lon,  with  or  without  the 
king,  we  may  argue  with  some  confidence  that  he  received  a  com- 
mission from  Jeremiah.  The  story  of  his  journey  would  otherwise 
have  hardly  come  down  to  us,  since  Baruch's  memoirs  seem  to 
have  been  exclusively  devoted  to  the  prophet  and  his  work.  If 
the  story  related  anything  incredible  about  Jeremiah  we  should  be 
justified  in  setting  it  aside.  But  he  looked  forward  to  the  ultimate 
overthrow  of  Babylon,  and  while  he  would  hardly  have  fanned 
the  flame  of  fanatical  patriotism  among  the  exiles  or  the  Jews  who 
remained  in  Palestine,  he  may  well  have  expressed  his  conviction 
in  this  striking  way  to  an  adherent.  He  would  thus  give  his  own 
circle  a  proof  that  his  predictionsof  Babylon's  triumph  and  Judah's 
downfall  at  her  hands  were  not  an  abandonment  of  his  faith  in 
the  restoration  and  high  destiny  of  Israel,  or  tantamount  to  the 
prediction  of  Babylon's  permanent  supremacy.  And  if  to  this  it  be 
replied  that  he  could  have  disabused  them  of  any  misconception 
as  to  his  attitude  by  a  strong  clear  statement  of  his  real  position, 
without  adopting  such  a  theatrical  method  as  is  here  described,  it 
may  be  replied  that  the  method  adopted  was  far  more  effective 
for  his  purpose.  We  are  already  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  idea 
of  prophecy,  that  it  did  not  merely  announce  the  future  but  helped 
to  create  it.  The  prophetic  word  released  energies  which 
achieved  its  own  fulfilment.  But  the  solemn  act  was  even  more 
potent,  in  that  the  word  was  not  only  uttered  and  committed  to 
writing,  but  taken  to  Babylon  itself  and  sunk  in  its  river,  so  that 
the  doom  it  announced  might  cleave  to  the  city  and  spread  with 
the  flow  of  the  stream  to  its  every  part,  and  thus  effect  its  final 
overthrow.  Thus  Jeremiah  gave  an  assurance  of  its  downfall  not 
by  any  theatrical  piece  of  symbolism,  but  by  himself  setting  in 
motion  the  forces  which  were  to  effect  it.  That  there  is  an 
element  of  sympathetic  magic  in  the  sinking  of  the  stone  with  the 
oracle  bound  to  it  is  not  to  be  denied  ;  but  it  would  be  unreasonable 
to  take  Jeremiah  out  of  his  intellectual  environment.  The  concep- 
tion  of  prophecy  as  working  out  its  own  fulfilment  is  not  magical ; 
the  word  of  the  living  God  was  itself  living  and  active,  and  could 
not  return  to  Him  void. 

li.  59-64.  Jeremiah's  injunction  to  Seraiah  when  he  accompanied 
him  to  Babylon.  Jeremiah  wrote  on  a  scroll  the  doom  of  Babylon, 
and  bade  Seraiah,  when  he  arrived  there,  read  all  the  words,  and 
afterwards  sink  the  scroll  in  the  Euphrates,  saying,  'Thus  shall 
Babylon  sink,  to  rise  no  more.' 

li.  59.  Cf.  xxxii.    12,  from  which  we   learn  that   Seraiah  was 


28o  JEREMIAH  51.60-64.     BSBSB 

went  with  Zedekiah  the  king  of  Judah  to  Babylon  in  the 
fourth  year  of  his  reign.     Now  Seraiah  was  ^  chief  cham- 

60  berlain.  And  Jeremiah  wrote  in  ^  a  book  all  the  evil  that 
should  come  upon  Babylon,  [S]  even  all  these  words  that 

61  are  written  concerning  Babylon,  [b]  And  Jeremiah  said 
to  Seraiah,  When  thou  comest  to  Babylon,  « then  see  that 

62  thou  read  all  these  words,  [s]  and  say,  O  Lord,  thou 
hast  spoken  concerning  this  place,  to  cut  it  off,  that  none 
shall  dwell  therein,  neither  man  nor  beast,  but  that  it 

()3  shall  be  desolate  for  ever,  [b]  And  it  shall  be,  when  thou 
hast  made  an  end  of  reading  this  book,  that  thou  shalt 
bind  a  stone  to  it,  and  cast  it  into  the  midst  of  Euphrates  : 

64  and  thou  shalt  say,  Thus  shall  Babylon  sink,  and  shall 

*  fOr,  quartermaster  ^  Or,  one  book  '^  Or,  aitd  shalt 

see,  and  read  .  .  .  then  shalt  thou  say  ifc. 

Baruch's  brother.  On  the  historicity  of  the  journey  and  the 
question  whether  Zedekiah  also  went  to  Babylon  see  the  Intro- 
duction to  this  section. 

chief  chamberlain.  The  margin  *  quartermaster '  is  prefer- 
able ;  this  official  would  have  to  arrange  for  the  halting-place  where 
the  company  would  spend  the  night.  Several  prefer  the  LXX 
*  commissary  of  the  presents,'  i.  e.  the  official  who  had  charge  of  the 
presents  for  the  king  or  the  tribute  due  to  him  from  Judah.  It 
involves  only  slight  change  in  the  Hebrew  consonants. 

60.  book :  better  scroll.  The  prophecy  was  probably  quite 
short,  and  60"^,  which  seems  to  identify  it  with  I.2 — li.  58,  should  be 
omitted  as  an  editorial  link  between  the  narrative  and  that  oracle. 

61.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  a  public  reading  is  intended, 
which  would  have  been  dangerous  and  also  most  unsuited  to  effect 
Jeremiah's  wishes  for  the  tranquillity  of  the  exiles.  It  is  a  secret 
reading,  Seraiah  being  either  alone  or  with  a  chosen  few.  The 
reading  aloud  is  part  of  the  process  by  which  the  oracle  is  sped  on 
its  mission. 

62.  This  verse  interrupts  the  connexion  between  61  and  63, 
and  presents  other  difficulties.  It  has  echoes  of  the  long  prophecy 
on  Babylon,  1.  3  and  1.  26,  and  should  probably  be  regarded  as 
a  later  insertion. 

63.  With  the  deletion  of  62  this  connects  immediately  with  61. 
On  the  significance  of  the  action  see  the  Introduction  to  this 
section. 


JEREMIAH  51.  64— 52.  4.     BRE  281 

not  rise  again  because  of  the  evil  that  I  will  bring  ^  upon 
her :  and  they  shall  be  weary. 

[R]  Thus  far  are  the  words  of  Jeremiah. 

[E]  ^  Zedekiah  was  one  and  twenty  years  old  when  he  52 
began  to  reign;  and  he  reigned  eleven  years  in  Jerusalem : 
and  his  mother's  name  was   Hamutal  the  daughter  of 
Jeremiah  of  Libnah.     And  he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  2 
the  sight  of  the  Lord,  according  to  all  that  Jehoiakim 
had  done.  For  through  the  anger  of  the  Lord  did  it  come  3 
to  pass  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  until  he  had  cast  them 
out  from  his  presence  :  and  Zedekiah  rebelled  against  the 
king  of  Babylon.     And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  ninth  year  4 
of  his  reign,  in  the  tenth  month,  in  the  tenth  day  of  the 

*  Or,  upon  her.     And  they  shall  be  weary :  thus  far  &c. 
^  See  2  Kings  xxiv.  18,  &c. 

64.  and  they  shall  be  weary.  This  is  no  part  of  Seraiah's 
utterance.  The  subscription  which  follows,  'Thus  far  are  the 
words  of  Jeremiah,'  probably  stood  once  after  58,  and  when  it 
was  removed  to  its  present  position,  these  words,  which  are  one 
word  in  the  Hebrew,  were  removed  with  it,  presumably  by  acci- 
dent, but  possibly  to  indicate  their  original  position.  We  might 
also  interpret  the  words  to  mean  that  the  words  of  Jeremiah  went 
down  simply  to  'and  they  shall  be  weary'  (58),  and  did  not  include 
59-64*.     But  this  is  not  so  likely. 

Hi.  The  Capture  of  Jerusalem  and  Fate  of  the  People. 
This  chapter  is  almost  entirely  taken  from  2  Kings  xxiv.  18 — 
XXV.  21,  27-30,  but  Hi.  28-30  is  derived  from  some  other  source. 
In  accordance  with  the  custom  usually  adopted  in  commentaries 
on  Jeremiah,  only  such  notes  are  here  given  as  are  required  by 
differences  between  the  two  texts  or  by  additions  to  the  narrative 
in  Kings.  For  the  general  exposition  of  the  chapter  the  student 
should  turn  to  Dr.  Skinner's  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Kings 
in  this  series.  The  text  in  Jeremiah  is  often  better  preserved  than 
in  Kings,  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  make  any  minute  comparison, 
or  to  repeat  what  Dr.  Skinner  has  said  on   their  mutual  relations. 

lil.  4-16.  These  verses  are  also  found  in  a  shortened  form  in 
xxxix.  i-io. 


282  JEREMIAH  52.  5-13.     E 

month,  that  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of  Babylon  came,  he 
and  all  his  army,  against  Jerusalem,  and  encamped  against 

5  it ;  and  they  built  forts  against  it  round  about.  So  the 
city  was  besieged  unto  the  eleventh  year  of  king  Zedekiah. 

6  In  the  fourth  month,  in  the  ninth  day  of  the  month,  the 
famine  was  sore  in  the  city,  so  that  there  was  no  bread  for 

7  the  people  of  the  land.  Then  a  breach  was  made  in  the 
city,  and  all  the  men  of  war  fled,  and  went  forth  out  of 
the  city  by  night  by  the  way  of  the  gate  between  the  two 
walls,  which  was  by  the  king's  garden  ;  (now  the  Chaldeans 
were  against  the  city  round  about :)  and  they  went  by  the 

8  way  of  the  Arabah.  But  the  army  of  the  Chaldeans  pur- 
sued after  the  king,  and  overtook  Zedekiah  in  the  plains 
of  Jericho ;  and  all  his  army  was  scattered  from  him. 

9  Then  they  took  the  king,  and  carried  him  up  unto  the 
king  of  Babylon  to  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath  ;  and 

10  he  ^  gave  judgement  upon  him.  And  the  king  of  Babylon 
slew  the  sons  of  Zedekiah  before  his  eyes  :  he  slew  also  all 

11  the  princes  of  Judah  in  Riblah.  And  he  put  out  the  eyes 
of  Zedekiah;  and  the  king  of  Babylon  bound  him  in 
fetters,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon,  and  put  him  in  prison 
till  the  day  of  his  death. 

X2  Now  in  the  fifth  month,  in  the  tenth  day  of  the  month, 
which  was  the  nineteenth  year  of  king  Nebuchadrezzar, 
king  of  Babylon,  came  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the 
guard,  which  stood  before  the  king  of  Babylon,  into  Jeru- 

13  salem  :  and  he  burned  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the 

*  Heb.  spake  judgements  with  him. 

10,  11.  These  verses  appear  in  an  abbreviated  form  in  2  Kings 
XXV.  7.  Here  we  have  added  the  slaughter  of  all  the  princes  of 
Judah  at  Riblah,  and  the  statement  that  Zedekiah  was  kept  in 
prison  to  his  death. 

12.  tenth.  2  Kings  xxv.  7  reads  seventh.  We  have  no  grounds 
for  a  decision  between  the  two. 


JEREMIAH  52.  14-21.     E  283 

king's  house;  and  all  the  houses   of  Jerusalem,  even 
^  every  great  house,  burned  he  with  fire.      And  all  the  14 
army  of  the  Chaldeans,  that  were  with  the  captain  of  the 
guard,  brake  down  all  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  round  about. 
Then  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the  guard  carried  away  15 
captive  of  the  poorest  sort  of  the  people,  and  the  residue 
of  the  people  that  were  left  in  the  city,  and  those  that  fell 
away,  that  fell  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  the  residue  of 
the  ^multitude.      But  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the  16 
guard  left  of  the  poorest  of  the  land  to  be  vinedressers 
and  husbandmen.      And  the  pillars  of  brass  that  were  in  17 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  the  bases  and  the  brasen  sea 
that  were  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  did  the  Chaldeans 
break  in  pieces,  and  carried  all  the  brass  of  them  to 
Babylon.    The  pots  also,  and  the  shovels,  and  the  snuffers,  18 
and  the  basons,  and  the  spoons,  and  all  the  vessels  of 
brass  wherewith  they  ministered,  took  they  away.      And  19 
the  cups,  and  the  firepans,  and  the  basons,  and  the  pots, 
and  the  candlesticks,  and  the  spoons,  and  the  bowls; 
that  which  was  of  gold,  in  gold,  and  that  which  was  of 
silver,  in  silver,  the  captain  of  the  guard  took  away.     The  ao 
two  pillars,  the  one  sea,  and  the  twelve  brasen  bulls  that 
were  under  the  bases,  which  king  Solomon  had  made  for 
the  house  of  the  Lord  :  the  brass  of  all  these  vessels  was 
without  weight.     And  as  for  the  pillars,  the  height  of  the  21 
one  pillar  was  eighteen  cubits  ;  and  a  line  of  twelve  cubits 
did  compass  it;  and  the  thickness  thereof  was  four  fingers: 
*  Or,  every  great  malt's  house         ^  fOr,  artificers 

15.  Omit 'of  the  poorest  sort  of  the  people  and  : '  it  is  a  mistaken 
insertion  from  16,  which  it  contradicts,  and  is  omitted  in  Kings. 

17-23.  The  account  in  Kings  is  considerably  abbreviated, 
especial!}'  21-23  which  in  Kings  occupies  only  one  verse.  Dr. 
Skinner's  notes  on  i  Kings  vii  should  be  consulted  in  addition  to 
those  on  the  parallels  in  a  Kings. 


284  JEREMIAH  52.  22-28.     ES 

2  2  it  was  hollow.  And  a  chapiter  of  brass  was  upon  it ;  and 
the  height  of  the  one  chapiter  was  five  cubits,  with  network 
and  pomegranates  upon  the  chapiter  round  about,  all  of 
brass :  and  the  second  pillar  also  had  like  unto  these, 

23  and  pomegranates.  And  there  were  ninety  and  six  pome- 
granates ^  on  the  sides ;   all  the  pomegranates  were  an 

24  hundred  upon  the  network  round  about.  And  the  captain 
of  the  guard  took  Seraiah  the  chief  priest,  and  Zephaniah 
the  second  priest,  and  the  three  keepers  of  the  ^door: 

25  and  out  of  the  city  he  took  an  c  officer  that  was  set  over 
the  men  of  war ;  and  seven  men  of  them  that  saw  the 
king's  face,  which  were  found  in  the  city ;  and  the  scribe 
of  the  captain  of  the  host,  who  mustered  the  people  of  the 
land  ;  and  threescore  men  of  the  people  of  the  land,  that 

36  were  found  in  the  midst  of  the  city.  And  Nebuzaradan 
the  captain  of  the  guard  took  them,  and  brought  them  to 

27  the  king  of  Babylon  to  Riblah.  And  the  king  of  Babylon 
smote  them,  and  put  them  to  death  at  Riblah  in  the  land 
of  Hamath.     So  Judah  was  carried  away  captive  out  of 

38  his  land,     [s]  This  is  the  people  whom  Nebuchadrezzar 

^  Or,  on  the  outside     Heb.  towards  the  four  winds.  ^  Heb. 

threshold.  "=  Or,  eunuch 


25.  seven :  in  2  Kings  xxv.  19,   '  five.' 

28-30.  After  27  the  two  texts  diverge,  to  unite  again  at  31.  In 
2  Kings  xxv.  22-26  we  have  a  summary  account  of  the  fortunes 
of  the  remnant  in  Palestine  down  to  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  and 
the  flight  into  Egypt.  It  is  abridged  from  Jer.  xxxix.  11 — xliii.  7. 
In  our  passage,  which  is  absent  in  the  LXX,  we  have  an  enumer- 
ation of  the  captives  taken  away  in  three  deportations.  We 
do  not  know  from  what  source  this  was  added,  and  the  passage 
presents  difficulties  ;  but  in  view  of  these  difficulties  and  the  low- 
ness  of  the  numbers,  its  statements  seem  to  rest  on  excellent  autho- 
rity. But  we  should  probably  read  '  seventeenth '  for  *  seventh,' 
since  the  figures  do  not  agree  with  those  given  as  to  the  exile  in 
597  (2  Kings  xxiv.  15,  16:  on  13,  14  see  Skinner's  Commentary, 
p.  430).    The  first  deportation  will  in  that  case  fall  at  the  beginning 


JEREMIAH  52.  29-33.     SE  285 

carried  away  captive  :  in  the  seventh  year  three  thousand 
Jews  and  three  and  twenty :  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  29 
Nebuchadrezzar  he  carried  away  captive  from  Jerusalem 
eight  hundred  thirty  and  two  persons :  in  the  three  and  30 
twentieth  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar  Nebuzaradan  the  cap- 
tain of  the  guard  carried  away  captive  of  the  Jews  seven 
hundred  forty  and  five  persons  :  all  the  persons  were  four 
thousand  and  six  hundred. 

[e]  a  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  seven  and  thirtieth  3^ 
year  of  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin  king  of  Judah,  in  the 
tw^elfth  month,  in  the  five  and  twentieth  day  of  the  month, 
that  Evil-merodach  king  of  Babylon,  in  the  first  year  of 
his  reign,  lifted  up  the  head  of  Jehoiachin  king  of  Judah, 
and  brought  him  forth  out  of  prison  ;  and  he  spake  kindly  3^ 
to  him,  and  set  his  throne  above  the  throne  of  the  kings 
that  were  with  him  in  Babylon.     And  he  changed  his  33 

*  See  2  Kings  xxv.  27-30. 

of  the  war  with  Zedekiah,  and  embrace  the  Jews  of  the  districts 
outside  Jerusalem,  captured  while  the  siege  of  the  capital  was  in 
progress.  We  must  further  assume  either  that  the  captives  taken 
after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  nineteenth 
year  are  not  included,  which  would  be  an  unaccountable  omis- 
sion, or  suppose  that  the  author  of  this  fragment  followed  a 
different  reckoning,  calling  the  eighteenth  what  is  elsewhere  called 
the  nineteenth  year ;  in  which  case  the  small  number  of  the  captives, 
eight  hundred  and  thirty-two,  taken  from  Jerusalem  is  very  sur- 
prising. Of  the  third  deportation  we  learn  nothing  from  any  other 
early  source.  It  occurred  some  years  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Several  scholars  combine  the  statement  with  that  in 
Josephus  [Antiq.  X.  ix.  7)  that  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  twenty-third 
year  of  his  reign  invaded  Coele-Syria,  then  attacked  the  Ammon- 
ites and  Moabites,  and  lastly  Egypt  from  which  he  took  to  Babylon 
the  Jews  who  were  there.  Some  think  that  it  was  rather  in  con- 
nexion with  the  campaign  against  Moab  and  Ammon  that  he  took 
away  more  of  the  Palestinian  Jews. 

31-34.  Taken  from  2  Kings  xxv.  27-30, 

31.  five  and  twentieth.  2  Kings  xxv.  27  has  'seven  and 
twentieth.' 


286  JEREMIAH  52.  34.     E 

prison  garments,  and  did  eat  bread  before  him  continually 
all  the  days  of  his  life.  And  for  his  allowance,  there  was 
a  continual  allowance  given  him  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
every  day  a  portion  until  the  day  of  his  death,  all  the  days 
of  his  life. 


THE  LAMENTATIONS  OF 
JEREMIAH 


INTRODUCTION 


THE   LAMENTATIONS   OF 
JEREMIAH 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  Position  in  Canon,  and  Title. 

The  English  Bible  follows  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate 
in  placing  the  Book  of  Lamentations  immediately  after 
the  Prophecies  of  Jeremiah.  This  position,  which  is  due 
to  the  belief  expressed  in  the  Introduction  to  the  former 
version,  that  Jeremiah  was  the  author,  is  not  accorded  to 
it  in  the  Hebrew  Canon.  In  this  it  is  placed,  not  in  the 
second  collection,  which  embraces  the  Prophets  along  with 
the  earlier  Historical  Books,  but  in  the  third  collection 
known  as  The  Writings.  That  the  latter  is  its  original 
position  is  probable,  since  the  LXX  translation  was  made 
by  a  different  hand  from  that  to  which  we  owe  the  trans- 
lation of  Jeremiah.  The  book  bears  the  title  Eykah  (i.  e. 
How)  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  from  the  word  with  which  it 
opens  ;  but  the  Jews  often  spoke  of  it  under  the  title 
Qinoth  (i.e.  Lamentations),  and  it  bears  an  equivalent  title 
in  the  LXX  and  Vulgate. 

II.  Literary  Form. 

The  first  four  of  the  poems  are  acrostics.  The  first, 
second,  and  fourth  each  contain  twenty-two  verses,  and 
each  verse  is  introduced  by  its  appropriate  letter,  begin- 
ning with  the  first  letter  of  the  alphabet  and  closing  with  the 
last.  In  the  first  and  second  chapters  each  verse  contains 
three  lines,  while  in  chapter  iv  each  contains  two  lines.  In 
chap,  iii  there  are  sixty-six  verses,  each  containing  one 
line ;  but  each  letter  of  the  alphabet  is  thrice  repeated  in 
successive  groups  of  three  verses.  The  fifth  poem  contains 
twenty-two  verses,  but  is  not  alphabetic  in  structure.  It 
has  been  suggested  by  C.  J.  Ball  that  originally  it  con- 

II  U 


290  LAMENTATIONS 

formed  to  the  other  poems  in  this  respect,  and  he  has 
made  suggestions  for  the  restoration  of  the  original.  But 
such  reconstructions  necessarily  involve  so  much  departure 
from  the  present  text  that  at  the  best  their  character  must  be 
very  uncertain.  The  choice  of  the  acrostic  form  for  poems 
of  this  character  is  not  quite  easy  to  understand,  since  the 
necessity  of  conforming  to  an  artificial  scheme  hampers 
the  freedom  of  expression  and  fetters  the  natural  develop- 
ment of  the  thought.  It  is  possible  that  originally  the 
alphabetic  structure  was  chosen  because  some  magical 
efficacy  was  attached  to  it.  But  later  it  became  one  among 
other  literary  types,  as  in  the  present  book.  Other  acros- 
tics are  to  be  found  in  Pss.  xxv,  xxxiv,  xxxvii,  cxi,  cxiii,  cxix, 
cxlv,  Prov.  xxxi.  10-31.  In  all  probability  Pss.  ix  and  x 
originally  formed  an  alphabetic  poem,  and  traces  of  the 
alphabetic  arrangement  are  also  to  be  found  in  Nahum  i. 
One  curious  feature  is  presented  by  our  book.  In  Lam.  i 
the  acrostic  adopts  the  usual  order  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet, 
Pe  following  Ayin,  but  in  Lam.  ii— iv  Pe  precedes  Ayin. 
This  order,  which  perhaps  is  to  be  found  elsewhere,  has 
not  yet  been  satisfactorily  explained.  Some  scholars 
suppose  that  the  same  order  was  originally  followed  in 
Lam.  i,  but  this  is  improbable  (see  note  on  i.  15). 

The  most  noteworthy  literary  feature  of  the  book  is  the 
metrical  structure  of  the  first  four  chapters.  These  are 
written  in  Qina  rhythm,  which  we  have  already  learned  to 
recognize  as  Jeremiah's  favourite  metre.  The  credit  for 
estabhshing  the  existence  of  this  metre  belongs  to  Budde, 
though  Lowth  and  other  scholars  had  to  some  extent 
anticipated  his  results.  The  name  Qina,  or  lamentation, 
rhythm  was  given  to  it  by  Budde  because  he  considered 
that  it  was  the  metre  in  which  dirges  over  the  dead  were 
uttered,  and  thus  came  to  be  used  for  elegies  over  national 
misfortunes.  This  metre  was,  however,  by  no  means 
exclusively  employed  for  lamentations,  so  that  the  term 
Qina  rhythm  is  retained  rather  as  a  convenient  than 
a  strictly  accurate  designation.    The  characteristic  feature 


INTRODUCTION  291 

of  this  rhythm  is  that  it  consists  of  long  lines  divided  into 
two  unequal  parts,  the  second  part  being  shorter  than  the 
first.  The  metre  depended  on  accent  rather  than  on 
quantity  or  the  number  of  syllables.  In  Qina  rhythm  the 
first  half  of  the  line  seems  normally  to  have  contained  three 
accented  syllables,  the  second  two  syllables.  Budde  lays 
down  the  law  for  elegies  in  the  following  sentence  :  '  These 
were  uniformly  composed  in  verses  of  two  members,  the 
length  of  the  first  of  which  stands  to  that  of  the  second  in 
the  proportion  of  3  :  2,  giving  rise  to  a  peculiar  limping 
rhythm,  in  which  the  second  member  as  it  were  dies  away 
and  expires '  (Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  iii, 
p.  5).  Probably  we  ought  to  recognize  that  there  was 
a  greater  freedom  and  irregularity  in  the  execution  than 
would  be  congenial  to  Western  taste,  so  that  while  the  re- 
cognition of  Qina  rhythm  is  valuable  for  purposes  of  Textual 
Criticism,  some  caution  should  be  exercised  in  emending 
the  text  into  too  strict  conformity  with  a  rigid  metrical 
scheme.  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  questions  of 
Hebrew  metre  in  general  the  student  may  consult  Cobb's 
A  Criticis7n  of  Systefns  of  Hebrew  Metre,  together  with 
Budde's  article  in  Hastings's  Dictio7iary  mentioned  above 
and  the  relevant  section  in  Cornill's  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  with  special  reference  to  La?nenta- 
tions,  the  Introduction  to  Lohr's  Commentary,  where  the 
metrical  theory  of  Sievers  is  discussed.  It  may  be  added 
that  Condamin,  in  a  very  suggestive  article  entitled  *  Sym- 
metrical Repetitions  in  Lamentations  Chapters  I  and  li', 
in  The  Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  vol.  vi  (1906),  has 
shown  that  in  the  first  two  chapters  as  a  rule  a  word  or 
expression  which  occurs  in  the  first  verse  is  repeated  in  the 
last  verse,  similarly  in  the  second  and  last  but  one,  in  the 
third  and  last  but  two,  and  so  on.  This  requires  a  little 
transposition  in  Lam.  i,  but  that  constitutes  no  serious  ob- 
jection. It  is  true  that  the  repetitions  are  in  several 
instances  of  very  common  expressions,  but  in  other 
instances  this  is  not  so. 

U  2 


292 


LAMENTATIONS 


III.  Authorship  and  Date. 


In  the  English  version  the  book  is  attributed  to  Jeremiah. 
In  the  LXX  the  title  is  simply  '  Lamentations ',  i.e.  no 
author's  name  is  given  in  the  LXX,  which  thus  accords 
with  the  Hebrew.  But  it  contains  an  introductory  note 
which  seems  to  rest  upon  the  Hebrew  original,  and  which 
is  reproduced  with  some  variation  in  the  Vulgate.  This 
note  runs  as  follows  :  *  And  it  came  to  pass  after  Israel  was 
carried  away  captive  and  Jerusalem  was  made  desolate 
that  Jeremiah  sat  weeping,  and  he  lamented  with  this 
lamentation  over  Jerusalem,  and  he  said.'  It  has  been 
held  by  some  scholars  that  the  author  of  Chronicles  attri- 
buted the  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah.  In  2  Chron.  xxxv. 
25  we  read  in  connexion  with  the  death  of  Josiah  :  'And 
Jeremiah  lamented  for  Josiah  :  and  all  the  singing  men 
and  singing  women  spake  of  Josiah  in  their  lamentations, 
unto  this  day ;  and  they  made  them  an  ordinance  in 
Israel :  and,  behold,  they  are  written  in  the  lamentations.' 
The  reference,  however,  can  hardly  be  to  our  book.  This 
contains  only  one  verse,  namely  iv.  20,  which  could  be  in- 
terpreted as  having  reference  to  Josiah.  Really  it  refers  to 
Zedekiah,  but  the  possibility  of  misinterpretation  cannot 
be  denied.  It  is,  nevertheless,  highly  improbable.  The 
chronicler  is  with  good  reason  believed  to  have  belonged 
to  one  of  the  temple  choirs,  and  he  could  hardly  have  sup- 
posed that  compositions  sung  in  commemoration  of  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  could  have  had  reference  to  the  death 
of  Josiah ;  and  on  the  face  of  it  the  statement  that  the 
lamentations  for  that  king  are  written  in  the  Lamentations 
cannot  refer  to  our  book.  We  have  accordingly  no 
external  evidence  earlier  than  that  of  the  LXX  translation 
for  the  traditional  view,  and  this  is  too  late  to  bear  any 
weight.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  author  of  Lam. 
iii  attributed  one  or  more  of  the  poems  to  Jeremiah. 

We  must  accordingly  rely  on  internal  evidence  alone 
for  an  answer  to  the  problems  of  authorship  and  date. 


INTRODUCTION  293 

The  book  itself  puts  forward  no  claim  to  authorship.  At 
first  sight  the  traditional  view  seems  very  plausible.  Of 
course  the  popular  view  that  Jeremiah  was  likely  to  have 
written  the  Lamentations  because  his  temperament  was 
such  as  to  find  congenial  expression  in  such  compositions, 
largely  depends  for  its  validity  on  an  estimate  of  Jeremiah 
derived  from  the  book  itself,  an  estimate  reflected  in  our 
word  'Jeremiad'.  But  this  is  to  argue  in  a  circle,  and 
tacitly  to  assume  the  very  point  which  needs  to  be  proved. 
Still  there  are  indications  in  Jeremiah's  undoubted  work 
of  a  temperament  akin  to  that  which  finds  utterance  in 
our  book  (cf.  Jer.  ix.  i,  xiii.  17,  xiv.  17).  Yet  it  is  only  a 
very  imperfect  parallel  with  the  real  Jeremiah  that  the 
author  or  authors  of  the  Lamentations  present  to  us.  The 
sterner  elements  in  his  character  can  barely  be  discerned 
in  our  book,  his  capacity  for  moral  indignation,  his  vehe- 
ment denunciation,  his  clear-sighted  certainty  of  approach- 
ing judgement,  his  conviction  that  no  earthly  power  could 
bring  political  salvation  to  the  apostate  people. 

Leaving  aside  the  question  as  to  the  similarity  of  tem- 
perament, there  is  no  doubt  considerable  affinity  between 
our  book  and  the  Book  of  Jeremiah,  alike  in  language  and 
ideas.  But  this  does  not  go  beyond  what  would  be  natural 
in  those  who  had  been  influenced  by  Jeremiah.  Moreover, 
the  points  of  contact  are  considerably  diminished  in  im- 
portance when  we  remember  how  large  is  the  non-Jeremi- 
anic  element  in  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  itself. 

Seeing  then  that  the  arguments  in  support  of  the  Jere- 
mianic  authorship  dwindle  to  a  late  tradition,  whose  origin 
is  readily  explained  by  the  desire  to  father  anonymous 
literature  on  some  conspicuous  personality,  Jeremiah 
being  the  obvious  if  not  the  only  possible  candidate  for 
such  distinction,  and  to  affinities  in  temperament,  expres- 
sion and  ideas  which  cannot  bear  the  weight  of  an  argu- 
ment for  identity  in  authorship,  we  should  be  compelled, 
were  there  no  arguments  on  the  other  side,  to  leave  the 
question  of  Jeremiah's  authorship  in  suspense.   But  there 


294  LAMENTATIONS 

are  cogent  arguments  which  seem  to  exclude  the  traditional 
theory.  In  the  first  place,  we  may  well  inquire  why,  if 
Jeremiah  was  the  author,  his  name  was  not  mentioned  in 
the  Hebrew  title  of  the  book.  And  indeed  we  may  inquire 
further  why  these  poems  were  not  included  in  our  Book  of 
Jeremiah.  Their  character  would  not  make  such  an 
inclusion  inappropriate,  in  view  of  the  somewhat  miscella- 
neous nature  of  the  contents  and  the  presence  of  much 
in  it  which  is  not  the  work  of  Jeremiah  at  all.  Or,  if  for 
any  reason  it  was  desired  to  keep  it  distinct,  why  should 
it  not  have  been  appended  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  to  the 
Book  of  Jeremiah,  as  in  the  Septuagint  and  other  versions  ■ 
These  general  considerations  are  reinforced  by  those 
derived  from  a  study  of  the  book.  While  there  is  a 
general  agreement  in  standpoint  there  is  difference  in 
detail.  In  iv.  17  the  author  includes  himself  with  those 
who  had  expected  help  from  Egypt,  whereas  Jeremiah 
emphatically  declared  that  such  a  hope  was  entirely  vain. 
In  iv.  20  he  speaks  of  Zedekiah  in  language  very  different 
from  that  which  would  have  been  used  by  Jeremiah.  Nor 
can  we  reasonably  suppose  that  Jeremiah  could  have  said 
'  Her  prophets  find  no  vision  from  Yahweh '.  Some  of 
the  other  instances  which  have  been  alleged  to  prove  the 
incompatibility  of  our  book  with  the  traditional  authorship 
cannot  be  pressed.  So  far  as  the  language  and  style  of 
the  book  are  concerned  there  are  points  of  contact  with 
Jeremiah,  as  mentioned  above ;  there  is  also  a  marked 
difference,  as  was  demonstrated  at  an  earlier  period  by 
Naegelsbach  and  at  a  later  time  exhaustively  proved  by 
Lohr.  On  this  it  may  suffice  to  quote  the  judgement  of 
a  great  Hebraist  who  was  singularly  free  from  any  love  of 
novelty  for  its  own  sake.  A.  B.  Davidson  says :  *  The 
whole  style  of  these  poems,  though  exquisitely  beautiful 
and  touching,  and  studded  with  the  thoughts  of  the  great 
prophet,  is  absolutely  different  to  anything  we  find  in  the 
long  roll  of  Jeremiah's  great  work.  It  is  too  artificial,  too 
much  studied,  too  elaborately  worked  out '  {Boo^  by  Book^ 


INTRODUCTION 


295 


p.  23 1 ),  The  case  against  Jeremiah's  authorship  is  strength- 
ened by  the  proof  of  dependence  on  Ezekiel  and  affinity 
with  later  writers.  So  far  as  this  test  goes  we  have  to 
distinguish  different  groups  within  our  book.  Lam.  ii  and 
iv  exhibit  dependence  on  Ezekiel,  Lam.  i  and  v  show 
points  of  contact  with  the  Second  Isaiah,  and  Lam.  iii 
with  Psalms  of  a  late  date.  That  Jeremiah  should  have 
borrowed  from  Ezekiel,  even  if  he  had  known  the  younger 
prophet's  writings,  is  very  improbable,  since  we  have  no 
evidence  of  any  such  influence  in  his  undoubted  work. 
And  the  argument  from  literary  parallelism,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  favours  a  later  date  than  that  of  Jeremiah  for  the 
composition  of  Lam.  i,  iii,  and  v. 

This  is  corroborated  by  a  consideration  of  the  circum- 
stances which  are  reflected  in  the  poems.  Itisratherdifficult 
in  any  case  to  find  a  suitable  occasion  in  which  Jeremiah 
could  have  composed  the  poems  ;  but  leaving  this  aside, 
the  conditions  which  they  seem  to  presuppose  are  in  some 
instances  apparently  later  than  Jeremiah's  time.  The 
book  closes  with  an  appeal  to  Yahweh,  which  implies  that 
the  desolation  of  Judah  has  continued  for  a  long  time ;  and 
we  could  not  reasonably  regard  this  passage  as  written  in 
Jeremiah's  lifetime,  quite  apart  from  the  inconsistency 
with  Jeremiah's  settled  convictions  as  to  the  length  of  the 
exile  which  it  involves.  Moreover,  the  speaker  is  living 
apparently  in  Palestine  a  long  time  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  We  may  say  then  that  looking  at  the  book 
as  a  whole  the  differences  in  diction  constitute  a  very 
strong  argument  against  the  Jeremianic  authorship,  even 
if  we  could  admit  that  he  was  in  a  position  to  write  the 
poems  and  that  he  would  have  been  likely  to  fetter  the 
expression  of  his  grief  by  an  artificial  alphabetic  scheme. 
Looking  at  the  poems  in  detail,  the  probable  dependence 
on  Ezekiel  makes  his  authorship  of  Lam.  ii  and  iv 
improbable,  and  it  is  also  excluded  by  the  inconsistencies 
with  Jeremiah's  standpoint  already  mentioned.  Affinities 
with  II  Isaiah  make  this  improbable  for  Lam.  i  and  v, 


296  LAMENTATIONS 

while  the  situation  presupposed  in  the  latter  seems  to  fall 
outside  the  limits  of  Jeremiah's  lifetime.  Lam.  iii  appears 
to  belong  to  the  post-exilic  period. 

If  then  no  part  of  the  book  is  the  work  of  Jeremiah,  the 
question  remains  whether  it  is  the  work  of  more  than  one 
poet.  Assuming  that  the  variation  in  the  alphabetic  order 
which  distinguishes  Lam.  i  from  Lam.  ii  and  iv  is 
original,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it  may  be  by  a  different 
author.  Lam.  ii  and  iv  are  commonly  assigned  to  the 
same  author  on  the  ground  of  their  literary  affinity,  their 
mutually  complementary  character,  and  the  identical 
situation  out  of  which  they  apparently  spring.  Lam.  v 
is  probably  a  good  deal  later  than  Lam.  ii  and  iv,  and 
deals  with  different  conditions  altogether,  and  is  probably 
by  another  author.  The  absence  of  an  alphabetic  scheme 
favours  the  view  that  it  was  not  written  by  the  authors  of 
Lam.  i— iv.  It  is  also  probable,  on  account  of  its  late 
date  and  the  form  which  the  acrostic  takes,  its  literary 
quality  and  the  character  of  its  subject-matter,  that  the 
author  of  Lam.  iii  is  responsible  for  none  of  the  other 
poems.  That  the  work  of  four  different  poets  should  be 
included  in  this  book  has  really  nothing  strange  about  it. 
It  is  quite  likely  that  many  poets  wrote  elegies  on  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  wretchedness  of  the 
people  in  the  period  which  followed. 

The  date  of  the  poems  cannot  be  fixed  within  very  close 
limits.  Lam.  ii  and  iv  are  probably  the  oldest.  They 
were  written,  we  may  reasonably  suppose,  by  one  who  had 
witnessed  the  horrors  of  Judah's  last  agony,  since  they 
bear  all  the  marks  of  composition  by  an  eye-witness.  The 
dependence  on  Ezekiel  suggests  that  they  were  written  by 
an  exile  in  Babylonia  ;  their  date  need  not  be  later  than 
580  B.  c.  Lam.  V  is  considerably  later,  probably  still  within 
the  exilic  period  but  towards  the  close  of  it.  Lam.  i  may 
perhaps  belong  to  the  same  period.  Lam.  iii  is  much 
later.  Lohr  suggests  325  B.  C.  as  an  approximate  date, 
while  Budde  assigns  it  to  the  third  century  in  the  pre- 


INTRODUCTION  297 

Maccabean  period  (similarly  Cheyne).  It  should  be 
added  that  in  two  important  articles,  that  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Biblica  by  Cheyne  and  that  in  the  eleventh  edition 
of  the  Encyclopaedia  Britafmica  by  C.  J.  Ball,  a  post- 
exilic  date  has  recently  been  assigned  for  the  whole  book. 
The  main  ground  on  which  this  conclusion  rests  is  the 
literary  relationship  between  our  book  and  late  exilic  and 
post-exilic  compositions.  In  detail,  however,  the  two 
writers  differ  considerably,  and  while  their  studies  are 
valuable  for  their  collection  of  parallel  passages  tlicse  do 
not  outweigh  in  the  present  writer's  opinion  the  impression 
that  Lam.  ii  and  iv  at  least  were  written  by  an  eye- 
witness, or  the  probability  that  Lam.  v  is  earlier  than  the 
close  of  the  exile.  It  may  be  added  that  J.  A.  Selbie  in 
hisadmirablearticle  in  Hastings'sDictionaryalso considers 
a  post-exilic  date  plausible. 

IV.  Selected  Literature. 

Of  the  older  literature  it  may  suffice  to  mention  the 
Commentary  by  Calvin,  of  later  Commentaries  those  by 
Thenius,  Neumann,  Ewald,  Gerlach,  Naegelsbach,  Payne 
Smith,  Streane  (Cambridge  Bible),  Cheyne  (Pulpit  Com- 
mentary), Oettli,  Budde,  and  Lohr.  Adeney  contributes 
the  volume  on  Ca?iticles  and  Lanie?itaiions  to  the  Exposi- 
tor's Bible.  Greenup  has  published  a  Commentary  on 
Lam.  i,  and  also  a  translation  of  the  Targum  on  the  Book 
of  Lamentations.  The  articles  in  the  Dictionaries  of  the 
Bible  and  Encyclopaedias  may  be  consulted,  together 
with  the  Introductions  to  the  Old  Testament  mentioned 
in  the  literature  on  Jeremiah.  The  articles  by  Lohr  in 
Stade's  Zeitschrift  are  of  special  value. 

Note. — It  has  not  seemed  necessary  to  add  any  symbols 
indicative  of  authorship,  or  to  prefix  analyses  of  the  poems  to 
the  notes,  in  view  of  the  absence  of  any  systematic  develop- 
ment of  the  themes  dealt  with  in  the  different  poems. 


THE   LAMENTATIONS   OF 
JEREMIAH 

REVISED  VERSION  WITH  ANNOTATIONS 


THE   LAMENTATIONS   OF 
JEREMIAH 

How  doth  the  city  sit  solitary,  that  was  full  of  people  !  i 
How  is  she  become  as  a  widow  ! 


i.  1-22.     The  First  Elegy. 

The  first  elegy  falls  into  two  main  divisions  :  (a)  i-ii,  (b)  12-22, 
In  the  former  the  poet  is  the  speaker,  in  the  latter  Jerusalem. 
The  city,  however,  is  introduced  as  the  speaker  in  the  closing 
lines  of  9  and  11  ;  while  in  17  the  prophet  interrupts  her  utterance, 
referring  to  the  city  in  the  third  person.  The  theme  receives  no 
strict  development,  the  author  returns  again  and  again  to  the  same 
thought,  and  the  poem  is  characterized  by  a  certain  poverty  in 
vocabular}'.  In  spite  of  some  fine  verses  it  falls  below  the  second 
and  fourth  elegies  in  poetic  value,  and  it  is  conventional  in  form 
and  expression.  It  seems  to  have  been  written  in  Palestine;  its 
date  may  be  towards  the  close  of  the  exile.  Lohr  singles  out  as 
specially  characteristic  of  its  theological  standpoint,  the  emphasis 
on  sin,  not  simply  the  rebellions  of  earlier  generations  but  of  the 
writer's  own  time,  and  the  desire  for  revenge. 

An  excellent  translation  is  given  by  Cheyne  in  the  Introduction 
to  The  Book  of  Psalms  in  the  Parchment  Library. 

i.  1,  2.  As  a  parallel  to  this  very  fine  passage  Cheyne  aptly 
quotes  the  splendid  opening  of  Swinburne's  Mater  Dolorosa. 

1.  The  verse,  as  is  usual,  falls  into  three  lines  : 

'How  doth  the  city  sit  solitary',     that  was  full  of  people  ! 

She  is  become  as  a  widow,     that  was  great  among  the  nations, 

Princess  among  the  provinces,  she  is  become  tributary  ! ' 
How.  The  second  and  fourth  elegies  open  in  the  same  way, 
and  similarly  Isaiah's  lament  on  the  corruption  of  Jerusalem  (Isa. 
i.  21),  a  passage  which  ma}'  have  been  in  the  writer's  mind  ;  cf. 
also  Jer.  ix.  18,  xlvlii.  17;  Zeph.  ii,  15;  Ezek.  xxvi.  17;  Isa.  xiv.  4, 
12  ;  2  Sam.  i.  25.  The  exclamation  was  apparently  commonly' 
used  as  an  introduction  to  dirges  over  the  dead, 

sit  solitary.  The  city  once  thronged  with  people,  now  sits 
all  deserted,  as  Isaiah  had  described  her  approaching  fate  in  the 
pathetic  imagery  of  Isa,  iii,  26, 

as  a  widow.  The  widowhood  of  Zion  is  spoken  of  in  Isa.  liv. 
4,  and   the    same   prophet   replies  to  Babylon's  arrogant  boast, 


302  LAMENTATIONS  1.  2. 

She  that  was  great  among  the  nations,  and  princess 

among  the  provinces, 
How  is  she  become  tributary  ! 
!      She  weepeth  sore  in  the  night,  and  her  tears  aje  on  her 
cheeks ; 

*  I  shall  not  sit  as  a  widow,  neither  shall  I  know  the  loss  of 
children,'  with  the  announcement  that  '  the  loss  of  children  and 
widowhood '  shall  befall  her  in  one  day  (Isa.  xlvii.  8,  9).  The 
poet  does  not,  however,  call  Zion  a  widow,  nor  does  he  mean  to 
suggest  that  she  is  bereaved  of  Yahweh  her  husband  (Isa.  liv.  5). 
She  is  compared  to  a  widow ;  it  is  her  forlorn  and  defenceless 
condition,  exposed  to  insult  and  oppression,  her  penury  and 
loneliness,  which  the  metaphor  calls  up  before  us. 

princess  among"  the  provinces.  This  is  probably  better 
than  Budde's  rendering,  'princess  over  the  provinces,'  since  it 
matches  'great  among  the  nations.'  The  term  'provinces'  is 
used  in  i  Kings  xx.  14-19  in  the  phrase  *  the  young  men  of  the 
princes  of  the  provinces,'  where  it  seems  to  mean  the  various 
districts  inta  which  the  kingdom  was  divided.  Apart  from  this 
passage  it  is  found  only  in  the  later  literature,  with  reference 
generally  to  the  Persian  satrapies.  Its  meaning  here  is  not  quite 
clear.  Lchr  suggests,  with  a  reference  to  the  Targums,  that  it 
may  mean  *  city,'  which  would  be  more  approprit^e. 

tributary :  better  a  bond-servant.  See  Judges  i.  30,  where 
the  R. V.  marg.  gives  '  subject  to  taskwork.' 

2.  The  city  which  in  i  was  simply  compared  to  a  widow,  is 
nowrepresented  as  a  woman.  Zion  weeps  bitterly  for  her  desperate 
state,  as  Rachel,  the  mother  of  Joseph  and  Benjamin,  for  her 
exiled  children  (Jer.  xxxi.  15).  But  while  Rachel  refused  to  be 
comforted,  those  who  should  have  consoled  Zion  had  treacherously 
deserted  her.  These  were  her  'lovers'  (cf.  19)  and  'friends,' 
i.  e.  the  nations  which  were  in  alliance  with  her,  especially  the 
other  Palestinian  peoples  (cf.  Jer.  xxvii.  3),  and  Egypt  (iv.  17, 
Jer.  xxxvii.  5  ff.).  For  the  exultation  of  Edom  over  the  downfall 
of  Jerusalem  see  note  on  iv.  21,  2a ;  for  the  hostility  of  Ammon 
Jer.  xl.  14,  Ezek.  xxv.  3-7. 

in  the  night :  cf.  Ps.  xxx.  5.  The  point  is  not  that  her  sorrow 
is  so  great  that  she  weeps  not  by  day  only  but  even  in  the  night 
which  should  be  dedicated  to  rest.  The  night  is  rather  the  season 
when  pain  is  most  acutely  felt  and  the  hours  seem  interminable. 
And  similarly  the  sense  of  bereavement  and  ruin  is  more  over- 
whelming when  the  sunshine  has  passed  away  and  the  stir  of  the 
day  has  given  place  to  the  stillness  of  the  night.  There  is  nothing 
to  blunt  the  edge  of  sorrow  or  divert  attention  from  it ;  withdrawn 


LAMENTATIONS  1.  3,  4.  303 

Among  all  her  lovers  she  hath  none  to  comfort  her : 
All  her  friends  have  dealt  treacherously  with  her, 
They  are  become  her  enemies. 
Judah  is  gone  into  *^  captivity  because  of  affliction,  and  3 

because  of  great  servitude ; 
She  dwelleth  among  the  heathen,  she  findeth  no  rest : 
All  her  persecutors  overtook  her  within  the  straits. 
The  ways  of  Zion  do  mourn,  because  none  come  to  the  4 

^'  solemn  assembly ; 

"  +0r,  extle  ^  -fOr,  appointed  feast 

from  all  companionship,  shut  in  alone  with  her  grief,  Zion  the 
desolate  relieves  her  emotion  in  passionate  tears. 

All  her  friends  .  . .  enemies.  This  should  be  printed  as  one 
line  ;  the  division  is  correctly  indicated,  the  second  part  of  the 
line  begins  with  '  They.' 

3.  From  the  city  the  poet  turns  to  the  people.  The  Hebrew 
is  ambiguous  ;  the  preposition  rendered  'because  of  means  'from,' 
and  it  may  be  used  here  in  a  local  or  a  causal  sense.  If  the  former, 
the  meaning  is  that  Judah  has  gone  into  captivity  in  Babylonia 
away  from  the  affliction  and  servitude  she  suffered  in  her  own 
land,  and  this  is  supported  by  the  fact  that  the  verb  rendered  *is 
gone  into  captivity'  all  but  invariably  bears  this  sense.  But  it  is 
unlikely  that  the  poet  would  wish  to  leave  the  impression  that 
captivity  was  an  amelioration  of  the  people's  lot,  and  even  if  it 
were  actually  so  it  would  be  contrary  to  his  purpose  to  lighten 
his  picture  by  such  a  touch.  We  should  accordingly  abide  by 
the  R.V.  rendering,  substituting  the  margin  'exile'  for  'captivity,' 
and  take  the  reference  to  be  to  voluntary  exile  on  the  part  of  those 
who  were  left  behind  in  Judah,  but  found  the  Babylonian  yoke 
too  intolerable  and  left  Judah  to  escape  it;  cf.  Jer.  xl.  11,  xlii,  xliii. 
The  verb  is  used  in  a  similar  sense  in  Ezek.  xii.  3.  But  even 
among  the  peoples  that  were  free  from  Babylon  she  found  no 
settled  home,  and  her  weakness  exposed  her  to  oppression,  her 
persecutors  took  advantage  of  the  straits  into  which  she  was  driven. 

servitude.  From  Isa.  xiv.  3  we  learn  that  the  Jews  in  Baby- 
lonia had  to  render  forced  labour  to  their  rulers,  and  apparently 
this  was  so  with  those  who  were  permitted  to  remain  in  Palestine. 

among'  the  heathen:  in  an  unclean  land,  among  those  who 
had  no  respect  for  her  religion  and  regarded  Yahweh  as  a  God 
too  weak  to  save  His  people  and  His  sanctuary  from  Babylon. 

4.  The  ways  which  lead  to  Zion,  once  crowded  with  those 
who  came  up  to  the  feasts,  now  mourn  because  they  are  deserted  ; 


304  LAMENTATIONS   1.  5,  6. 

All  her  gates  are  desolate,  her  priests  do  sighr- 

Her  virgins  are  afflicted,  and  she  herself  is  in  bitterness. 

Her  adversaries  are  become  the  head,  her  enemies 
prosper ; 

For  the  Lord  hath  afflicted  her  for  the  multitude  of  her 
transgressions : 

Her  young  children  are  gone  into  captivity  before  the 
adversary. 

And  from  the  daughter  of  Zion  all  her  ^  majesty  is  de- 
parted : 

^  Or,  beauty 

the  priests  sigh,  for  their  occupation  and  livelihood  have  disap- 
peared ;  the  virgins  who  had  their  appointed  part  in  the  cultus 
(Judges  xxi.  21,  Ps.  Ixviii.  25,  Jer.  xxxi.  13)  are  afflicted;  while 
Zion  herself  broods  in  bitterness.  The  passage  has  a  historical 
importance,  since  it  does  not  favour  the  view  that  throughout  the 
exile  the  cultus  was  continued  on  the  Temple  site,  though  it  may 
have  done  so  for  some  time  after  the  destruction  of  the  city  (see 
note  on  Jer.  xli.  5). 

5.  the  liead.  There  is  perhaps  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxviii.  13,  44. 
her  transg-ressions.    The  thought  that  Zion's  calamities  were 

due  to  her  sin  recurs  in  8,  18,  20,  22  ;  but  the  writer  does  not 
indicate  more  precisely  of  what  sins  she  had  been  guilty. 

Her  young"  children  .  *  .  adversary.  The  reference  may  be 
to  the  deportation  of  the  Jews  by  the  Babylonians,  the  young 
children  being  singled  out  because  the  privations  and  fatigue  of 
the  march  would  press  on  them  with  special  severity.  But  the 
author  wrote  apparently  in  the  latter  part  of  the  exile,  and  the 
burden  of  his  lamentation  is  the  sad  condition  of  city  and  people 
at  the  time,  rather  than  the  horrors  of  the  siege  and  the  miseries 
of  the  deportation,  though  the  latter  are  of  course  mentioned.  It 
is  possible  that  the  reference  may  be  rather  to  the  fact  that  parents 
were  driven  by  poverty  to  sell  their  children  into  slavery. 

6.  her  majesty  :  her  wealth  and  splendour  ;  so  that  even  the 
princes  had  become  faint  from  famine  in  the  siege,  and  in  this 
exhausted  condition  are  driven  by  the  foe  into  exile.  The  specific 
allusion  in  the  third  line  is  sometimes  taken  to  be  to  the  flight  of 
Zedekiah  and  the  men  of  war  from  Jerusalem,  when  the  Baby- 
lonians entered  it.  But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  poem  was 
probably  not  written  by  an  eye-witness  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  it 
is  more  likely  that  the  Hne  has  a  more  general  reference,  though 
it  might  be  urged  that,  according  to  Jer,  lii.  10,  *  all  the  princes  of 


LAMENTATIONS  1.  7  305 

Her  princes  are  become  like  harts  that  find  no  pasture, 
And  they  are  gone  without  strength  before  the  pursuer. 
Jerusalem  remembereth  in  the  da)s  of  her  affliction  and  7 

of  her  »^  miseries 
All  her  pleasant  things  that  were  from  the  days  of  old  : 
When  her  people  fell  into  the  hand  of  the  adversary, 

and  none  did  help  her, 
The  adversaries  saw  her,  they  did  mock  at  her  ^  desola- 
tions. 

*  fOr,  wanderings  ^  Heb.  ceasings. 

Judah'  were  put  to   death   by   Nebuchadnezzar  in    Riblah,  and 
therefore  were  not  taken  to  Babylon. 

like  harts.  The  LXX  and  Vulg.  took  the  word  to  mean 
'  like  rams ; '  the  difference  is  only  one  of  pointing,  and  many 
modern  commentators  accept  this.  Budde's  objection  that  rams 
are  not  hunted  is  forcible,  but  '  the  pursuer '  need  not  be  so 
narrowly  interpreted,  while  *  rams  '  is  more  suitable  than  '  harts ' 
as  a  designation  of  princes,  and  the  word  is  in  fact  constantly 
used  in  this  or  a  similar  sense. 

7.  The  verse  is  too  long.  It  ought  to  contain  three  lines,  but 
it  has  four.  The  irregularity  is  less  obvious  to  the  English  reader, 
since  the  R.V.  has  printed  i  and  2  in  four  lines,  though  they  are 
really  three-lined  verses  (see  notes).  Probably  the  second  line 
should  be  deleted  as  a  marginal  gloss  which  has  been  mistakenly 
inserted,  and  we  should  render  in  the  text,  'Jerusalem  remem- 
bereth the  days  of  her  affliction  and  wanderings.  "When  her  peo- 
ple fell,'  &c.  The  origin  of  the  gloss  is  obscure  ;  it  may  have  been 
attached  to  '  her  majesty '  in  6,  or  it  may  have  been  intended  to 
bring  out  the  bitterness  of  her  fate  by  contrast  with  her  former 
glory.  When  the  gloss  is  removed,  the  first  line  has  still  an 
abnormal  verse-division  ;  but  we  ought  probably  to  recognize  that 
the  order  of  the  two  parts  of  the  line  was  occasionally  inverted, 
the  shorter  being  placed  first  Budde  secures  regularity  by 
striking  out  the  rare  word  rendered  'and  of  her  miseries,'  as 
perhaps  a  repetition  of  the  very  similar  word  rendered  'of  her 
pleasant  things  ;'  though  it  might  be  due  to  the  influence  of  iii.  ig, 
'  Remember  mine  affliction  and  my  misery.' 

miseries.  The  word  occurs  besides  only  in  iii.  19  and  Isa. 
Iviii.  7.  Its  sense  is  uncertain  ;  probably  it  means  '  restlessness,* 
'  wandering.' 

desolations.  The  word  occurs  here  only.    The  A.  V.  rendering 
'  sabbaths,'  which  follows  the  Vulgate,  is  rightly  set  aside  by  the 
II  X 


3o6  LAMENTATIONS  1.  8-10 

8  Jerusalem  hath  grievously  sinned;   therefore  she  ^is 

become  as  an  unclean  thing  : 
All  that  honoured  her  despise  her,  because  they  have 

seen  her  nakedness : 
Yea,  she  sigheth,  and  turneth  backward. 

9  Her  filthiness  was  in  her  skirts ;  she  remembered  not 

her  latter  end ; 
Therefore  is  she  come  down  wonderfully ;  she  hath  no 

comforter : 
Behold,  O  Lord,  my  affliction ;   for  the  enemy  hath 

magnified  himself. 

10  The  adversary  hath  spread  out  his  hand  upon  all  her 

pleasant  things : 

*  Or,  is  removed 


R.V.,  which  gives  the  general  sense  ;  *  downfall '  would  perhaps 
be  beter. 

8.  With  a  realism,  uncongenial  to  our  Western  taste,  the  poet 
describes  in  this  verse  and  the  following  the  pitiful  humihation  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  scorn  which  its  exposure  has  brought  upon 
her,  among  those  who  had  formerly  honoured  her. 

9.  According  to  the  present  text  the  first  two  lines  are  metrically 
irregular.  Budde  makes  the  ingenious  suggestion  that  two  words 
should  be  transposed  from  8  and  inserted  after  '  skirts,'  and  that 
'she  hath  no  comforter,*  which  occurs  several  times  in  the  poem, 
should  be  struck  out  as  an  insertion  designed  to  fill  a  gap.  The 
hnes  would  then  run, 

*  Her  filthiness  was  in  her  skirts,    she  is  become  as  an  unclean 
thing : 

She  remembered  not  her  latter  end,  therefore  is  she  come 
down  wonderfully.' 
This  yields  a  text  more  satisfactory  both  in  metre  and  sense  ; 
for  the  want  of  connexion  between  the  two  halves  of  the  first  line 
in  the  present  text  is  very  noticeable.  For  '  she  remembered  not 
her  latter  end  '  cf.  Isa.  xlvii.  7. 

As  in  II,  the  last  line  is  an  appeal  by  the  city  to  Yahweh  ; 
which  prepares  for  the  transition  to  direct  speech  in  12. 

10.  The  enemy  has  greedily  seized  all  Zion's  'pleasant  things,' 
the  special  reference  in  this  context  being  to  the  Temple  treasures. 
The  sense  of  the  Temple's  sanctity  was  deeply  outraged  by  the 
intrusion  of  the  heathen  into  it.     The  feeling  was  probably  inten- 


LAMENTATIONS  1.  u,  i^  307 

For  she  hath  seen  that  the  heathen  are  entered  into  her 

sanctuary, 
Concerning  whom  thou  didst  command  that  they  should 

not  enter  into  thy  congregation. 
All  her  people  sigh,  they  seek  bread  ;  11 

They  have  given  their  pleasant  things  for  meat  to  refresh 

the  soul : 
See,  O  Lord,  and  behold ;  for  I  am  become  vile. 
Is  it  nothing  to  you,  all  ye  that  pass  by?  12 

sified  in  the  later  period,  the  profanation  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
the  entrance  of  Pompey  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  being  resented 
with  the  utmost  horror  and  bitterness.  In  Pss.  Ixxiv  and  Ixxix 
we  perhaps  have  reflected  the  emotion  stirred  by  an  earlier  pro- 
fanation in  the  Persian  period,  to  which  some  would  also  refer 
Isa.  Ixiii.  7 — Ixiv.  12.  In  the  first  century  of  our  era  there  was  a 
Greek  inscription  warning  Gentiles,  on  penalty  of  death,  not  to 
pass  beyond  the  barrier  which  marked  the  limits  of  the  court  of 
the  Gentiles.  This  inscription  has  been  discovered  in  recent 
times.  The  third  line,  with  its  reference  to  Deut.  xxiii.  3,  though 
in  a  generalized  form  (cf.  Ezek.  xliv.  9),  brings  out  that  it  is 
a  Divine,  not  merely  a  human  prohibition,  which  the  heathen  have 
transgressed.  Lohr  suspects  that  this  line  was  originally  a  mar- 
ginal gloss  which  has  taken  the  place  of  the  original  third  line. 
But  if  a  marginal  gloss  was  inserted  in  the  text,  we  should  have 
expected  the  verse  to  consist  of  four  lines,  as  is  the  case  with  7, 
rather  than  that  a  line  should  be  struck  out  to  make  room  for  it. 
Bickell,  followed  by  Cheyne,  reads  in  the  first  line  '  Zion  spreadeth 
forth  her  hands,  because  of  her  pleasant  things,'  the  gesture  in 
that  case  expressing  distress. 

11.  Oettli  is  probably  right  in  thinking  that  the  special  reference 
in  this  verse  is  to  the  conditions  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  Such 
valuables  as  they  had  been  able  to  save  from  the  disaster  they  had 
been  compelled  to  part  with  to  buy  bread.  So  in  v.  4  the  complaint 
is  made  that  they  have  to  purchase  the  water  and  the  wood  which 
once  they  had  owned. 

meat:  literally  '  bread,'  i.  e.  food. 

12.  The  second  half  of  the  poem  begins  at  this  point.  Zion  is 
now  the  speaker,  except  in  17. 

The  text  of  the  first  line  is  probably  corrupt.     The  rendering 

in  E.V.  is  very  dubious  ;  the  Hebrew  is  literally  '  Not  to  you,  all 

ye  that  pass  by.'    The  LXX  apparently  took  the  negative  16'  as 

the  particle /?<',  'would  that,' though  it  is  possible  that  the  transla- 

X   2 


3o8  LAMENTATIONS  1:  13 

Behold,  and  see  if  there  be  any  sorrow  Hke  unto  my 

sorrow,  which  is  done  unto  me, 
•"^Wherewith  the  Lord  hath  afflicted  vie  in  the  day  of 
his  fierce  anger. 
J  3      From  on  high  hath  he  sent  fire  into  my  bones,  and  it 
prevaileth  against  them : 
He  hath  spread  a  net  for  my  feet,  he  hath  turned  me 
back; 

^  Or,  Whom  the  Lord  hath  afflicted 

tor  read  qy,  *  alas.'  The  verse  must  have  begun  with  Lamed,  but 
this  letter  is  written  small  in  the  Hebrew  text,  which  also  may 
point  to  textual  corruption.  Several  suggestions  have  been 
made  for  the  restoration  of  the  text,  but  none  inspires  any  great 
confidence.  Budde  reads  '  Oh,  all  ye,  that  pass  by,  look  on  me 
and  see  ; '  Lohr  '  Therefore,  all  ye  that  pass  by,  look  and  see.' 

all  yetliat  pass  by.  The  traveller,  as  he  pauses  before  the  ruins 
of  Zion,  is  asked  whether  in  all  his  wanderings  he  has  seen  a  sight 
so  pathetic,  a  grief  so  bitter,  so  absorbing  ;  all  the  more  bitter 
that  it  is  her  own  God  who  has  smitten  her  in  His  hot  anger. 

13.  Yahweh  has  sent  from  heaven  a  fire  into  Zion's  bones  ; 
the  reference  is  not,  of  course,  to  the  fortresses,  as  the  hard  bony 
parts  of  the  structure ;  the  metaphor  implies  that  the  Divine  judge- 
ment has  entered  like  a  flame  her  inmost  being,  a  fever  whose 
racking  pains  ended  in  death.  The  figure  is  borrowed  apparently 
from  Jer.  xx.  9  :   cf.  Ps.  cii.  3,  Job  xxx.  30. 

it  prevailetli  ag-ainst  them.  The  word  is  not  very  appro- 
priate ;  the  verb  may  bear  the  same  sense  as  the  cognate  form  in 
Aramaic,  to  chastise.  We  might  adopt  this,  and  with  a  slight 
change  read  *  and  chastened  me.'  The  Vulgate  read  the  Hebrew 
in  this  wa}'. 

spread  a  net  for  my  feet.  The  metaphor  is  not  uncommon 
in  the  Psalms  to  describe  the  plots  devised  by  the  writer's  enemies 
for  their  ruin.  The  Psalmists  do  not  represent  God  as  spreading 
a  net  for  the  feet.  In  Ezek.  xii.  13  (cf.  xvii.  20)  Yahweh  says 
with  reference  to  Zedekiah,  '  My  net  also  will  I  spread  upon  him, 
and  he  shall  be  taken  in  my  snare ; '  similarly  in  Hos.  vii.  12, 
*When  they  shall  go,  I  will  spread  my  net  upon  them  :'  cf.  Jer.  I. 
24.  The  most  striking  development  of  the  metaphor  is  in  Bildad's 
graphic  description  of  the  snares  and  terrors  which  beset  the 
wicked  on  every  side  (Job  xviii.  8-1 1). 

he  hath  turned  me  back.  We  should  rather  have  expected 
the  line  to  be  completed  by  some  such  clause  as,  '  and  taken  me 


LAMENTATIONS  1.  14  309 

He  hath  made  me  desolate  and  faint  all  the  day. 

The  yoke  of  my  transgressions  is  bound  by  his  hand  ;    14 

They  are  knit  together,  they  are  come  up  upon  my  neck ; 

he  hath  made  my  strength  to  ^  fail : 
The  Lord  hath  delivered  me  into  their  hands,  ^'  against 

whom  I  am  not  able  to  stand. 

"  Heb.  stumble.  ^  Or,  from  tvhom  I  am  not  able 

to  rise  up 


in  its  toils.'  If  the  poet  intended  to  continue  the  metaphor  of  the 
net,  he  has  not  done  so  in  a  very  felicitous  way :  snares  are  set  to 
entrap,  not  to  turn  back  ;  for  the  latter  the  figure  of  a  barrier 
would  have  been  more  appropriate.  The  two  parts  of  the  verse 
should  presumably  be  regarded  as  mutually  independent, 

14i  This  is  a  very  difficult  verse.  The  verb  rendered  'is  bound* 
occurs  nowhere  else,  and  its  existence  is  dubious.  The  substitu- 
tion of  another  consonant  (nc^eqad  for  ni'sqad,  so  Cheyne)  would 
give  the  sense  *  is  bound  ; '  the  verb  occurs  in  Gen.  xxii.  9  only. 
Or  we  might  read  niqshar  (so  Ball).  Written  with  a  5/?m  instead 
of  a  Sin  (the  difference  being  one  simply  of  a  diacritical  point),  the 
verb  means  *  to  watch.'  Since  the  word  rendered  '  3'oke'  may  be 
so  pointed  as  to  mean  'upon,'  the  LXX  naturally  took  the  Hebrew 
to  mean  'Watch  is  kept  over  my  transgressions.'  We  should 
then  have  to  suppose  either  that  the  word  rendered  'by  his  hand' 
is  to  be  regarded  as  a  fragment  of  the  second  part  of  the  line,  or 
connect  it  with  the  following  word,  rendering  '  by  his  hand  are 
they  twisted  together.'  The  second  line  will  then  consist  of  'they 
are  come  up  .  .  .  fail.'  Since  this  is  unduly  short,  Budde  proposes 
to  insert  the  word  for  'j'oke'  (reading  ^dln  '6l  'a/),  which  is  all 
the  easier  that  the  two  consonants  of  which  it  is  composed  already 
occur  twice,  and  then  continues  in  the  next  clause  with  a  plural 
verb.  'They  have  come  up  as  a  yoke  upon  my  neck  ;  they  have 
made  my  strength  to  fail.'  This  restoration  of  the  first  two  lines 
does  not  give  the  most  satisfactory  sense,  but  it  is  perhaps  the 
nearest  approximation  to  the  original  that  has  so  far  been  pro- 
posed. The  meaning  will  be  that  Yahweh  watches  over  Zion's 
transgressions,  twining  them  together  into  a  rope  of  many  strands, 
which  is  laid  like  a  yoke  on  her  neck,  and  has  exhausted  her 
strength. 

The  third  line  gives  a  good  sense,  but  the  Hebrew  would  run 
more  smoothly  if,  with  Budde,  we  read  'their  hand'  instead  of 'the 
hands  of,'  rendering  '  Yahwf  h  hath  delivered  me  into  their  hand, 
I  am  not  able  to  rise  up.' 


310  LAMENTATIONS  1.  15, 16 

15  The  Lord  hath  set  at  nought  all  my  mighty  men  in  the 

midst  of  me ; 
He  hath  called  a  solemn  assembly  against  me  to  crush 

my  young  men : 
The  Lord  hath  trodden  as  in  a  winepress  the  virgin 

daughter  of  Judah. 

16  For  these  things  I  weep ;  mine  eye,  mine  eye  runneth 

down  with  water ; 

Eecause  the  comforter  that  should  refresh  my  soul  is 
far  from  me : 

My  children  are  desolate,  because  the  enemy  hath  pre- 
vailed. 


15.  The  heroes  of  Zion  are  powerless  against  the  might  of 
Babylon ;  the  foe  assembles  against  her  warriors  as  if  to  celebrate 
a  sacrificial  banquet  (cf.  Zeph.  i.  7,  8,  Jer.  xlvi.  10,  Ezek.  xxxix. 
17-20,  Isa.  xxxiv.  6)  to  which  the  ruddy  wine  will  not  be  wanting, 
for  Yahweh  has  trodden  human  grapes  in  His  winepress,  the  wine 
is  the  blood  of  Judah.  The  metaphor  of  the  last  line  is  powerfully 
worked  out  in  the  brilliant,  if  morall3''  repulsive,  description  of 
Yahweh's  return  from  His  triumph  over  Edom  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  1-6: 
cf.  Joel  iii.  13,  and  the  imitative  passages  Rev.  xiv.  18-20,  xix.  15. 

virgin  daughter  of  Judah  :  not  Judah 's  virgin  daughter,  but 
Judah  conceived  as  a  young  virgin,  the  genitive  being  one  of 
apposition.  The  designation  is  based  on  Isaiah's  '  virgin  daughter 
of  Zion.'  But  it  is  not  equivalent  to  it;  Zion  is  the  speaker,  but 
she  refers  to  Judah  in  the  third  person,  and  means  the  population 
of  the  whole  kingdom.  Bickell  identifies  the  two,  and  supposes 
that  here  the  poet  speaks  in  his  own  person  and  refers  to  Zion  in 
the  third  person.  Since  he  does  this  in  17,  Bickell  infers  that  16 
and  17  should  be  transposed,  so  that  this  line  should  stand  in 
immediate  connexion  with  17.  This  would  secure  the  same  order 
of  the  alphabet  as  in  ii-iv,  according  to  which  Pe  precedes  Ayin. 
But  this  is  to  be  rejected  not  only  because  Zion  and  Judah  are  not 
to  be  identified,  but  because  it  would  spoil  the  present  symmetrical 
division  of  Zion's  speech  into  two  equal  halves,  12-16  and 
18-22. 

16.  On  metrical  grounds  the  repetition  of  'mine  eye'  must  be 
regarded  as  a  mistake,  due  to  dittography.  The  second  and 
third  lines  consist  mainly  of  echoes  of  earlier  verses. 

these  thing's:  i.  e.  those  enumerated  in  13-15. 


LAMENTATIONS  1.  17-19  311 

Zion  spreadeth  forth  her  hands;  there  is  none  to  com-  17 
fort  her ; 

The  Lord  hath  commanded  concerning  Jacob,  that 
they  that  are  round  about  him  should  be  his  adver- 
saries : 

Jerusalem  is  among  them  as  an  unclean  thing. 

The  Lord  is  righteous ;  for  I  have  rebelled  against  his  18 
commandment : 

Hear,  I  pray  you,  all  ye  peoples,  and  behold  my  sorrow : 

My  virgins  and  my  young  men  are  gone  into  captivity. 

I  called  for  my  lovers,  but  they  deceived  me  :  19 

17.  The  poet  speaks  in  his  own  person.  This  verse  also  has 
points  of  contact  with  earlier  parts  of  the  poem.  Zion  spreads  out 
her  hands  in  entreaty  to  a  pitiless  world  ;  Yahweh  has  decreed 
that  Jacob's  neighbours  should  be  his  foes ;  they  look  on  Jerusalem 
with  loathing,  asa man  would  shrink  from  the  ceremonially  unclean. 
In  the  later  period  the  name  Jacob  (ii.  2,  3)  was  used  for  the 
nation  with  greater  frequency  and  without  the  sinister  suggestions 
of  trickiness  and  self-seeking  that  once  attached  to  it.  For  the 
hostility  of  the  surrounding  peoples  see  note  on  2  and  Jer.  xii.  7- 
17  (with  the  notes). 

18.  Zion  resumes  her  utterance  with  a  confession  that  Yahweh 
is  righteous  in  thus  afflicting  her;  it  is  the  due  punishment  for  her 
rebellion  :  cf.  5,  8,  14,  20,  22.  She  turns  to  the  nations,  as  before 
to  the  wayfarer  (12),  appealing  to  their  compassion  in  spite  of 
their  former  lack  of  sympathy ;  she  cannot  believe  that  they 
would  withhold  their  pity  if  they  but  considered  the  bitterness  of 
her  bereavement. 

My  virgins  and  my  young"  men.  This  order  is  found  only 
here  and  in  ii.  21,  Amos  viii.  13. 

are  gone  into  captivity.  The  reference  is  probably  to  the 
deportation  to  Babylon,  though  possibly  to  the  selling  of  youths 
and  maidens  into  foreign  slavery  :  see  note  on  5. 

19.  the  poet  touches  again  (cf.  2,  8)  the  faithlessness  of  Judah's 
allies ;  when  her  crisis  came  they  betrayed  her  trust.  Then  he 
passes  on  to  the  religious  and  secular  leaders  of  the  people,  who 
perished  of  hunger,  while  vainly  seeking  food  to  bring  back  their 
exhausted  vitality.  At  the  end  of  the  verse  the  LXX  adds  'and 
found  it  not.'  Metrical  considerations  forbid  its  addition,  unless 
something  is  removed  to  take  its  place.  Di'serinck  and  Budde 
substitute  it  for  '  to  refresh  their  souls.'  It  is  true  that  this  expres- 
sion  occurs  in    11,   16,  but   this    poem  is   marked   by    numerous 


312  LAMENTATIONS  1.  20,21 

My  priests  and  mine  elders  gave  up  the  ghost  in  the 

city, 
While  they  sought  them  meat  to  refresh  their  souls. 
20      Behold,  O  Lord  ;  for  I  am  in  distress ;  my  bowels  are 

troubled ; 
Mine  heart  is  turned  within  me  ;  for  I  have  grievously 

rebelled : 
Abroad  the  sword  bereaveth,  at  home  there  is  as  death. 
2  r      They  have  heard  that  I  sigh  ;  there  is  none  to  comfort 

me; 
All  mine  enemies  have  heard  of  my  trouble ;  they  are 

glad  that  thou  hast  done  it : 
Thou  wilt  bring  the  day  that  thou  hast  proclaimed,  and 

they  shall  be  like  unto  me. 

repetitions,  and  that  their  search  was  unsuccessful  is  sufficient!}' 
indicated  by  the  previous  line.  Ball  reads  '  For  they  sought  food 
to  restore  life,  and  found  it  not.' 

20.  From  the  description  of  her  calamities  Zion  turns  to  Yah- 
weh  in  prayer,  though  the  prayer  itself  contains  fresh  mention  of 
her  troubles.  Ball  reads  '  my  inwards  bum  '  instead  of  '  For  I 
have  grievously  rebelled,'  which  is  more  suitable  to  the  context. 
The  third  line  presents  some  difficulty.  The  general  sense  is  clear  : 
the  sword  bereaves  outside  the  city  ;  death,  i.  e.  the  pestilence  (see 
note  on  Jer.  xv.  2),  rages  within.  But  '  there  is  as  death  *  is 
strange.  The  omission  of  a  single  consonant  gives  the  reading 
^  at  home  there  is  death/  which  is  quite  satisfactory  except  that  it 
is  not  quite  easy  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  present  text.  It 
is  accepted  by  several  scholars,  and  is  probably  the  best  way  out  of 
the  difficulty. 

21.  The  text  is  in  some  disorder.  At  the  beginning  we  should 
probably  read,  Mrith  the  omission  of  one  consonant,  '  Hear  how  I 
sigh,'  the  words  being  addressed  to  Yahweh  as  at  the  beginning  of 
20.  The  text  has  been  assimilated  to  the  second  line.  The  second 
and  third  lines  as  at  present  arranged  are  metrically  irregular. 
We  can  best  overcome  the  difficulty  by  transposing  (with  LOhr) 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  line  and  the  former  part  of  the  third, 

'  All  mine  enemies  have  heard  of  my  trouble,     thou  hast  brought 

the  day  that  thou  didst  proclaim  ; 
They  are  glad  that  thou  hast  done  it,     let  them  be  like  unto  me.' 
The  '  day '  is  that  of  Zion's  downfall  foretold  by  the  prophets. 


LAMENTATIONS  1.  22—2.  1  313 

Let  all  their  wickedness  come  before  thee  ;  32 

And  do  unto  them,  as  thou  hast  done  unto  me  for  all 

my  transgressions : 
For  my  sighs  are  many,  and  my  heart  is  faint. 

How  hath  the  Lord  covered  the  daughter  of  Zion  with  2 

a  cloud  in  his  anger  ! 
He  hath  cast  down  from  heaven  unto  the  earth  the 

beauty  of  Israel, 

22.  The  prayer  for  vengeance  on  her  exulting  foes  is  more  fully 
developed  in  this  verse  and  supported  by  a  moral  motive.  The 
spirit  is  one  of  retaliation,  but  it  is  given  a  more  decorous  expres- 
sion by  the  plea  that  they  also  are  guilty  of  wickedness,  which 
merits  an  equal  punishment  with  the  rebellion  of  Zion.  Ball  reads 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  *  Let  the  time  of  their  calamity  come.' 

ii.  1-22.     The  Second  Elegy. 

This  poem  is  of  higher  poetical  value  than  the  first  elegy;  it  is 
written  with  a  much  more  vivid  sense  of  the  catastrophe,  appar- 
ently by  one  who  had  lived  through  it  and  seen  with  his  own  eyes 
the  pitiful  scenes  and  the  horrors  he  describes.  It  is  less  made 
up  of  generalities,  and  deals  far  more  with  concrete  realities.  Its 
affinities  with  Ezekicl  suggest  a  date  a  few  years  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  and  favour  the  view  that  the  author  was  himself 
an  exile. 

For  a  spirited  rendering  of  Lam.  ii  and  iv  see  G.A.  Smith,  yi?r«- 
salem,  vol.  ii. 

ii.  It  How :  see  note  on  i.  i. 

covered  .  .  .  with  a  cloud.  This  is  probably  the  correct  ren- 
dering of  the  verb,  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  O.  T.  The 
dense  cloud  which  covers  Zion  is  a  symbol  of  the  gloom  which  has 
settled  upon  her,  and  the  shrouding  of  her  glory  from  the  gaze 
of  the  world.    Cheyne  reads  '  put  to  shame.' 

daughter  of  Zion:  see  note  on  i.  15.  It  occurs  six  times  in 
this  poem  ;  *  daughter  of  Judah  '  twice  ;  '  daughter  of  Jerusalem' 
twice. 

the  beauty  of  Israel.  This  may  be  an  expression  for  the 
glory  of  Israel,  its  exalted  position;  or  it  may  designate  some 
concrete  object,  either  the  Temple  (Isa.  Ixiv.  ii)  or  Jerusalem. 
Exalted  to  heaven,  it  had  been  thrust  down  from  that  proud 
pre-eminence.  Yet  thrust  down  to  earth,  not  to  Sheol ;  its  ruin  is 
not  irretrievable. 


3.14  LAMENTATIONS  2.  2,  3 

And  hath  not  remembered  his  footstool  in  the  day  of 

his  anger. 
The  Lord  hath  swallowed  up  all  the  habitations  of 

Jacob,  and  hath  not  pitied ; 
He  hath  thrown  down  In  his  wrath  the  strong  holds  of 

the  daughter  of  Judah  ; 
He  hath  brought  them  down  to  the  ground : 
He  hath  profaned  the  kingdom  and  the  princes  thereof. 
He  hath  cut  off  in  fierce  anger  ^  all  the  horn  of  Israel ; 
^  Or,  eveyy  horn 

his  footstool.  Obviously  this  cannot  be,  as  in  Isa.  Ixvi.  i,  the 
whole  earth,  but  either  the  ark  as  in  i  Chron.  xxviii.  2,  or  the 
Temple  as  Ezek.  xliii,  7  and  probably  Ps.  xcix.  5,  cxxxii.  7.  The 
latter  is  much  the  more  likely,  especially  as  it  is  questionable  if  the 
ark  was  in  existence  when  Jerusalem  was  captured. 

2.  There  is  a  metrical  irregularity,  which  is  relieved,  if  not 
completely  removed,  by  Lshr's  rearrangement  of  the  second 
and  third  lines, 

*  He  hath  thrown  down,  brought  down  to  the  ground  the  strong 
holds  of  the  daughters  of  Judah  ; 

He  hath  profaned  in  his  wrath  the  king  and  the  princes  thereof.' 
The  change  of  '  kingdom  '  into  '  king,'  accepted  also  by  Bickell,  is 
not  for  metrical  reasons,  but  follows  the  LXX,  Syriac,  and  Arabic  ; 
cf.  9,  and  Isa.  xliii.  28(R.V.  margin),  'will  profane  the  holy  princes.' 

The  verse  describes  first  the  unsparing  devastation  of  the  home- 
steads and  pastures  in  the  country  districts  (this  being  the  special 
sense  borne  by '  habitations  '),  then  the  overthrow  of  the  fortresses, 
and  finally  the  desecration  of  king  and  princes.  The  divinity  that 
'  doth  hedge  a  king,'  which  made  an  outrage  on  *  the  Lord's 
anointed'  something  of  a  sacrilege  to  antique  thought,  was  rudely 
stripped  away,  and  the  secondary  sanctity,  which  was  communi- 
cated to  princes  of  the  blood  (cf.  Isa.  xliii.  28  as  above),  naturally 
disappeared  with  the  primary.  On  the  origin  of  this  conception 
in  primitive  superstition,  Dr.  Frazer's  The  Golden  Bough,  Part  I, 
'The  Magic  Art  and  the  Evolution  of  Kings'  (191 1),  may  be  con- 
sulted with  advantage. 

3.  The  horn  is  often  in  the  O.T.  the  symbol  of  strength  :  the 
meaning  is  that  all  the  might  of  Israel  has  been  cut  off.  The  right 
hand  which  formerlj'  Yahweh  had  stretched  out  in  defence  of 
His  people.  He  has  drawn  back,  leaving  them  dependent  on  them- 
selves alone  in  presence  of  the  enemy.     Thus  having  in  His  wrath 


LAMENTATIONS  2.  4-r>  315 

He  hath  drawn  hack  his  right  hand  from  before  the 

enemy : 
And  he  hath  burned  up  Jacob  hke  a  flaming  fire,  \vhich 

devoureth  round  about. 
He  hath  bent  his  bow  Hke  an  enemy,  he  hath  stood  4 

with  his  right  hand  as  an  adversary,  ...,    .^ 

And  hath  slain  all  that  were  pleasant  to  the  eye:!/  f  iilj 
«  In  the  tent  of  the  daughter  of  Zion  he  hath  poured  out 

his  fury  like  fire. 
The  Lord  is  become  as  an  enemy,  he  hath  swallowed  5 

up  Israel ; 
He  hath  swallowed  up  all  her  palaces,  he  hath  destroyed 

his  strong  holds : 
And  he  hath  multiplied   in. the  daughter  of  Judah 

mourning  and  lamentation.;;' .'^^r^T  '  '^^^'yrr 

And  he  hath  violently  taken  away  his  ^tabernacle,  as  if  6 

it  were  of  a  garden  ; 

»  Or.  Oil  Or,  booth     Or,  heds'e 


cut  off  their  strength,  and  then  withdrawn  His  own  protection, 
they  are  at  the  mere}'  of  the  foe.  Not  content  with  depriving 
them  of  all  power  of  defence,  He  has  taken  the  offensive  against 
them,  and  burned  Jacob  as  with  a  devouring  fire. 

4.  This  verse  also  is  only  imperfectly'  preserved.  The  second 
half  of  the  first  line  is  too  long  ;  Lohr  is  probably  right  in  thinking 
that  '  with  his  right  hand  '  has  been  mistakenly  inserted  from  3. 
The  second  line  has  been  wrongly  printed  in  R.V.     It  should  run  : 

'  And  hath  slain  all  that  were  pleasant  to  the  eye  in  the  tent 
of  the  daughter  of  Zion.' 
The  third  line  is  unfortunately  incomplete,  the  second  half  having 
been  lost.  Yahweh  is  in  this  verse  represented  as  an  archer  (cf. 
the  powerful  description  in  Job  xvi,  13)  ranging  Himself  against 
His  people  and  slaying  the  youths  and  maidens  of  Zion.  Another 
restoration  (by  Cheyne)  may  be  seen  in  Etw.  Bib.  2698. 

5.  mourning'  and  lamentation.  Streane  reproduces  the 
assonance  in  the  Hebrew  by  rendering  'groaning  and  moaning;' 
Chej'ne  renders  'moaning  and  bemoaning.' 

6.  This  verse  is  difficult.     The  first  line  in  tlie  Hebrew  is  repre- 


3i6  LAMENTATIONS  2.  6 

He  hath  destroyed  his  place  of  assembly  : 


sented  by  two  lines  in  the  R.V.  The  reference  to  *  a  garden '  is 
barely  intelligible.  The  rendering  *  as  if  it  were  of  a  garden  ' 
suggests  that  the  tabernacle  of  Yahweh  has  been  removed  with  as 
little  compunction  as  if  it  were  a  temporary  booth  in  a  garden. 
But  the  Hebrew  is  more  naturally  rendered  *  as  a  garden,'  and 
this  yields  no  satisfactory  sense.  The  LXX  reads  *as  a  vine,'  but 
this  is  no  better.  Since  both  words  begin  with  the  same  conso- 
nant, Lohr  may  be  right  in  thinking  that  the  Hebrew  and  the 
LXX  are  expansions  of  the  same  abbreviation.  De  Hoop  Scheffer 
reads,  with  the  addition  of  a  single  consonant,  'as  a  ihieV  (gattttdb 
for  gan),  and  this  has  been  accepted  by  Dyserinck  and  Budde. 
In  that  case  we  should  adopt  the  margin  '  hedge '  for  '  tabernacle,' 
and  explain  that  Yahweh  has  broken  down  the  hedge  round  Zion 
as  ruthlessly  as  a  thief  would  break  down  a  fence  which  protected 
property  he  desired  to  rob.  If  this  was  the  original  text  it  was 
perhaps  intentionally  altered,  both  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  LXX, 
because  the  comparison  seemed  offensive.  It  is  better  than  the 
Heb.  and  LXX,  but  it  leaves  something  to  be  desired  in  lucidity, 
and  the  context  favours  the  rendering  'tabernacle'  rather  than 
'  hedge,'  since  it  is  with  the  Temple  that  the  poet  is  now  concerned. 
Accordingly  we  must  resign  ourselves  to  recognizing  that  the  text 
is  corrupt.  The  general  sense  is  fortunately  clear.  Cheyne  gives 
a  suggested  restoration  of  6-8  in  Enc.  Bib.  2698. 

place  of  assembly.  This  sense  is  required  by  the  context. 
The  word  is  the  same  as  that  rendered  *  solemn  assembly '  in  the 
next  line,  and  though  the  meaning  '  place  of  assembly  '  is  attested 
by  Ps.  Ixxiv.  8,  it  is  suspicious  that  the  word  should  be  used  in  two 
senses  in  successive  lines.  Budde  thinks  that  the  original  text 
may  have  read  '  his  vineyard  '  {kar mo),  vjhich  was  perhaps  inten- 
tionally altered  by  the  same  hand  to  which  we  owe  *as  a 
garden.' 

But  '  his  vineyard  '  would  surely  have  seemed  quite  unobjec- 
tionable to  him  ;  it  would  suit  the  present  text  quite  as  well  as  that 
which  De  Hoop  Scheffer  substitutes.  If,  as  is  probable,  neither  is 
correct,  we  may  dismiss  the  emendation  'his  vine3'ard.'  The  con- 
text requires  a  designation  of  the  Temple.  The  present  writer  is 
inclined  to  think  that  '  his  sanctuary  '  (jniqddsho  instead  oimo'ddo) 
should  be  read.  The  corruption  was  facilitated  by  the  fact  that 
the  next  word  {shikkah)  began  with  sA,  and  by  the  occurrence  of 
mo'ed  in  the  next  line.  It  is  true  that  this  word  recurs  in  7,  but 
so  also  does  ino'edj  i.  e.  three  times  in  two  verses,  and  the  use  of  the 
same  word  in  the  same  sense  in  consecutive  verses  is  less  objec- 
tionable than  the  use  of  the  same  word  in  different  senses  in 
consecutive  lines. 


LAMENTATIONS  2.  7  317 

The  Lord  hath  caused  ^  solemn  assembly  and  sabbath 

to  be  forgotten  in  Zion, 
And  hath  despised  in  the  indignation  of  his  anger  the 

king  and  the  priest. 
The  Lord  hath  cast  off  his  altar,  he  hath  abhorred  his  7 

sanctuary, 
He  hath  given  up  into  the  hand  of  the  enemy  the  walls 

of  her  palaces  : 

*  fOr,  appointed /easi 

the  "king  and  the  priest.  The  king  is  mentioned  here,  as  the 
context  requires  and  the  coupling  with  the  priest  suggests,  in 
virtue  of  his  official  relation  to  the  cultus. 

7.  The  second  line  is  difficult  and  probably  corrupt.  This 
verse,  like  the  preceding,  is  occupied  with  the  Temple  ;  a  reference 
to  palaces  is  out  of  place.  If  the  term  is  taken  to  mean  certain 
parts  of  the  Temple,  such  a  meaning  occurs  nowhere  else,  and 
since  '  sanctuary  '  is  a  masculine  noun,  the  feminine  'her  palaces 
is  hard  to  account  for.  Elsewhere  the  expression  'to  give  up  into 
the  hand  of '  has  persons,  not  things,  for  its  object.  Several 
scholars  hold  that  the  text  needs  to  be  altered.  Dyserinck  thinks 
some  such  word  as  'his  dwelling'  should  be  substituted  for  'her 
palaces.'  Budde  suggests  very  cleverly  that  we  should  emend  it 
into  'his  ark  of  the  covenant'  {^aron  b^ritho  for  ^arm^notheyhd), 
and  strike  out  'the  walls  of  as  a  mistaken  insertion  from  the  next 
verse.  This  suggestion,  like  the  preceding,  is  open  to  the  objection 
that  we  should  expect  the  object  to  be  persons,  not  things.  Even 
if  we  waive  this,  as  in  this  context  we  well  may,  it  remains  ques- 
tionable if  a  mention  of  the  ark  is  to  be  expected  here  (see  notes  on 
i).  Cheyne  reads  for  'the  walls  of  her  palaces,'  'all  her  precious 
things;'  similarly  in  8  '  to  destroy  the  precious  things  of  Zion.' 
Lehr  simply  leaves  a  blank  in  his  translation. 

The  poet  compares  the  noise  made  in  the  Temple  by  the  Baby- 
lonian soldiers  to  that  made  on  '  the  day  of  a  solemn  assembly,' an 
allusion,  all  the  more  significant  that  it  is  quite  incidental,  to  the 
orgiastic  character  of  the  cultus  in  the  pre-exilic  period.  It  is  also 
clear  that  the  poet  was  himself  familiar  with  the  Temple-worship 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  a  fact  which  corroborates  what 
we  should  otherwise  infer  from  the  poem,  that  he  was  an  eyewit- 
ness of  its  siege  and  fall.  The  description  may  be  illustrated  from 
Ps.  Ixxiv.  3-7,  even  though  this  probably  refers  to  a  later  calamity, 
especially  from  verse  4.  'Thine  adversaries  have  roared  in  the 
midst  of  thine  asscmbb'.' 


3i8  LAMENTATIONS  2.  8,  9 

They  have  made  a  noise  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  as 

in  the  day  of  a  solemn  assembly 
The  Lord  hath  purposed  to  destroy  tne  wall  of  the 

daughter  of  Zion ; 
He  hath  stretched  out  the  line,  he  hath  not  withdrawn 

his  hand  from  ^  destroying  ; 
But  life  hath  made  the  rampart  and  wall  to  lament ; 

they  languish  together. 
Her  gates  are  sunk  into  the  ground ;  he  hath  destroyed 

and  broken  her  bars : 
Her  king  and  her  princes  are  among  the  nations  where 

the  law  is  not ', 

*  Heb.  swallowing  up. 

8.  The  poet  passes  on  from  the  Temple  to  the  walls  and  gates 
of  the  city  and  its  most  prominent  inhabitants.  The  walls  and  gates 
are  specially  mentioned,  because  while  they  remained  intact  the 
city  kept  its  foes  at  bay,  and  when  the  city  was  captured  they  were 
broken  down  (2  Kings  xxv.  io  =  Jer.  lii.  14)  as  a  precaution  against 
future  rebellion  (cf.  Ezra  iv.  12-16).  Although  Jerusalem  was 
reduced  to  the  extremities  of  famine  (12,  19,  20,  iv.  3,  4,  g,  10, 
2  Kings  xxv.  3=Jer.  lii.  6),  the  city  was  not  actually  starved  into 
surrender,  but  'a  breach  was  made  in  the  city'  (2  Kings  xxv.  4  = 
Jer.  lii.  7). 

stretched  out  tlie  line.  This  metaphor  is  employed  elsewhere 
not  only  for  building  or  restoration  (Zech.  i.  i6)  but  for  pulling 
down  as  here :  cf.  Amos  vii.  7-9  ;  2  Kings  xxi.  13,  *  And  I  will  stretch 
over  Jerusalem  the  line  of  Samaria,  and  the  plummet  of  the  house 
of  Ahab;'  Isa.  xxxiv.  11,  *he  shall  stretch  over  it  the  line  of  confusion 
and  the  plummet  of  emptiness.'  The  work  of  destruction  will  be 
carefully  planned  and  thoroughly  executed. 

not  withdrawn  his  hand.  God's  hand  was  withdrawn  from 
the  defence  of  His  people  (3);  it  is  stretched  out  to  destroy  the 
city. 

For  the  vivid  personification  in  the  third  line  cf.  i.  4,  Jer.  xiv.  2. 

9.  In  the  first  line,  *  destroyed '  and  *  broken  '  are  variants,  one 
of  which  must  be  deleted  on  metrical  grounds.  The  latter 
is  used  in  Amos  i.  5,  Jer.  li.  30,  and  may  be  either  retained  or 
struck  out  on  that  ground.  Bickell  and  Budde  strike  it  out,  but 
read  'her  bars  are  destroyed,'  so  that  Yahweh  ceases  to  be  the 
subject,  as  in  the  rest  of  the  verse. 

where  the  law  is  not.     If  this  rendering  is  correct,  the  mean- 


LAMENTATIONS  2.  lo,  »i  319 

Yea,  her  prophets  find  no  vision  from  the  Lord. 

The  elders  of  the  daughter  of  Zion  sit  upon  the  ground,  10 

they  keep  silence ; 
They  have  cast  up  dust  upon  their  heads ;  they  have 

girded  themselves  with  sackcloth : 
The  virgins  of  Jerusalem  hang  down  their  heads  to  the 

ground. 
Mine  eyes  do  fail  with  tears,  my  bowels  are  troubled,     11 

ing  is  that  the  king  and  princes  are  in  a  heathen  land  where  the 
Law  cannot  be  fulfilled  because  the  land  is  unclean.  But  it  is 
more  likely  that  we  should  take  the  words  as  an  independent 
sentence,  and  explain  '  law '  as  the  ritual  direction  given  by  the 
priests  (Jer.  xviii.  18,  see  the  note  ;  Ezek.  vii.  26,  Mai.  ii.  7).  The 
verse  then  expresses  the  same  idea  with  reference  to  three  classes, 
rulers,  priests,  and  prophets,  that  the}'  are  precluded  from  exercis- 
ing their  proper  duties.  It  is  the  function  of  kings  and  princes  to 
rule  ;  but  obviously  when  they  and  their  people  are  exiles  in  a 
foreign  land  this  has  become  impossible;  the  duty  of  the  priest  is 
to  give  torah  or  ritual  instruction,  but  with  the  cessation  of  the 
cultus  there  is  no  demand  for  torah  ;  the  prophet  is  such  because 
he  receives  '  vision  '  from  Yahweh  and  proclaims  to  the  people 
what  he  has  thus  learnt,  but  though  there  are  prophets  in  the  cap- 
tivity Yahweh  vouchsafes  them  no  vision,  their  vocation  has  gone. 
This  last  statement  is  somewhat  surprising  from  a  poet  who  was 
apparently  acquainted  with  Ezekiel's  prophecies  and  had  been 
influenced  by  them.  But  presumably  he  is  thinking  here,  as  in  14, 
of  the  prophets  whom  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  alike  condemned  and 
whom  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  had  discredited.  We  should  render 
the  two  lines: 

'  Her  king  and  her  princes  are  among  the  nations;  there  is  no 
priestly  direction  ; 

Also  her  prophets  find  not         a  vision  from  Yahweh.' 

10.  While  king  and  princes  govern  no  longer,  while  priests 
have  no  occupation,  and  prophets  see  no  vision,  the  elders  sit  in 
dumb  despair  on  the  ground  and  no  longer  give  counsel  in  the  gate. 
They  have  sprinkled  dust  on  their  head  (2  Sam.  xiii.  19,  Job  ii.  2, 
Ezek.  xxvii.  30)  and  girded  themselves  with  sackcloth,  both 
expressions  of  mourning.  The  virgins  in  deep  dejection  bow  their 
heads  to  the  ground. 

11.  The  poet,  in  a  moving  passage,  now  describes  his  own 
anguish  at  the  suffering  of  his  people  in  the  siege,  especially  at 
the  pitiful  spectacle  of  the  little  children  swooning  from  hunger 


320  LAMENTATIONS  2.  12,  13 

My  liver  is  poured  upon  the  earth,  for  the  ^  destruction 

of  the  daughter  of  my  people ; 
Because  the  young  children  and  the  sucklings  swoon  in 

the  streets  of  the  city. 

12  They  say  to  their  mothers.  Where  is  corn  and  wine? 
When  they  swoon  as  the  wounded  in  the  streets  of  the 

city, 
When  their   soul  is  poured  out  into  their  mothers' 
bosom. 

13  What  shall  I  b  testify  unto  thee.^  what  shall  I  liken  to 

thee,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem  ? 

*  Or,  breach  ^  Or,  take  to  witness  for  thee 


in  the  streets,  vainly  begging  for  food  which  the  heart-broken 
mothers  have  no  power  to  give.  His  pity  for  the  children  comes 
out  again  in  20,  iv.  3,  4,  10. 

My  liver:  mentioned  like  the  bowels  as  a  seat  of  emotion. 
The  statement  that  it  is  poured  on  the  ground  is  strangely  expressed, 
but  it  is  to  be  compared  with  the  similar  phrase  '  Pour  out  thine 
heart'  in  19 :  cf.  Ps.  Ixii.  8. 

12.  com  and  wine.  Budde  omits  'and  wine,'  no  doubt 
correctly.  The  metre  requires  the  omission  ;  the  request  for  wine 
is  not  in  itself  probable,  and  elsewhere  the  word  for  wine  used 
here  (ydyin)  is  coupled  with  that  for  *  bread  ; '  a  diflferent  word  for 
wine  {ttrosh)  being  combined  with  '  com.'  In  the  LXX,  where  the 
Hebrew  speaks  of  some  one  as  eating,  the  translator  often  adds 
that  he  drank.  Here  a  similar  addition  has  been  made,  while  the 
Syriac,  by  a  still  more  thoughtless  addition,  reads  *  com  and  wine 
and  oil.' 

their  soul  is  poured  out:  i.e.  they  lapse  into  unconsciousness, 
either  of  swoon  or  death;  the  former  seems  to  be  intended  here. 
A  pathetic  touch  is  added  to  the  picture  by  the  last  words:  the 
mother  strains  to  her  breast  the  exhausted  body  of  her  child  as  it 
faints  with  hunger, 

13.  The  poet  tries  to  bethink  himself  of  some  parallel  cata- 
strophe ;  if  he  could  discover  one,  Zion  might  take  some  comfort 
from  the  fact  that  her  disaster  was  not  unexampled.  Alas,  it  is 
immeasurable  as  the  sea. 

testify  unto  thee.  Of  what  can  he  assure  Zion  ?  But  we 
should  probably  correct  the  text  and,  with  Krochmaland  Meinhold, 
read  '  compare'  {^e'eivk)  for  '  testify,'  as  in  Isa.  xl.  18. 


LAMENTATIONS  2.  14,  15  321 

What  shall  I  equal  to  thee,  that  I  may  comfort  thee, 
O  virgin  daughter  of  Zion  ? 

For  thy  breach  is  great  like  the  sea  :  who  can  heal  thee? 

Thy  prophets  have  seen  visions  for  thee  of  vanity  and  14 
foolishness ;  ' 

And  they  have  not  discovered  thine  iniquity,  to  bring 
again  thy  captivity  : 

But  have  seen  for  thee  ^  burdens  of  vanity  and  ^  causes 
of  banishment. 

All  that  pass  by  clap  their  hands  at  thee ;  15 

They  hiss  and  wag  their  head  at  the  daughter  of  Jeru- 
salem, saying: 
*  fOr,  oracles  ^  Or,  things  to  draw  thee  aside 

14.  The  poet  complains  of  the  prophets,  who  have  prophesied 
falsely  and  covered  up  the  sin  of  Jerusalem.  If  they  had  only 
done  their  dut}',  he  implies,  the  captivity  mighthave  been  averted. 
It  is  remarkable  that  he  ignores  Jeremiah's  pessimistic  verdict  on 
the  conduct  of  the  people,  and  the  obstinate  self-complacency  on 
which  his  message  madebutlittleimpression.  Nor  could  Jeremiah  be 
himself  the  writer  of  this  passage.  He  judged  the  situation  quite 
different)}'.  True,  he  denounced  the  prophets  in  scathing  terms. 
But  priests  and  people  were  held  guilty  by  him,  and  he  would 
have  refused  to  excuse  them  on  the  score  that  the  prophets  had 
not  done  their  duty. 

foolisliness.  The  word  bears  rather  the  sense  of  'whitewash  :' 
the  prophets  have  palliated  the  conduct  of  the  people,  represented 
it  in  altogether  too  favourable  a  light. 

to  bring"  again  thy  captivity  :  see  note  on  Jer.  xxix.  14. 
Here  the  term  apparently  means  *to  avert  thy  captivity;'  the  A.V., 
*  to  turn  away  thy  captivity,'  hits  the  sense  better. 

causes  of  banishment.  The  word  occurs  here  only,  but  the 
derivation  fixes  its  meaning  as  *  banishment.'  The  meaning 
cannot  be  that  the  prophets  foresaw  the  expulsion  of  Judah,  for 
they  strenuously  denied  it,  but  that  the  attitude  which  they  encour- 
aged by  their  oracles  inevitably  led  to  exile.  The  visions  they  saw 
were  in  this  sense  *  causes  of  banishment.' 

15.  The  mockery  of  the  travellers  (i.  12)  as  they  pause  to  con- 
template the  ruins  of  the  once  famous  city.  Probably  the  gestures 
in  this  verse  are  intended  to  express  scorn  and  astonishment  rather 
than  exultation :  see  Job  xxvii.  23, '  Men  shall  clap  their  hands  at 

II  V 


322  LAMENTATIONS  2.  i6,  17 

Is  this  the  city  that  men  called  The  perfection  of  beauty, 
The  joy  of  the  whole  earth  ? 

16  All  thine  enemies  have  opened  their  mouth  wide  against 

thee; 
They  hiss  and  gnash  the  teeth  ;   they  say,  We  have 

swallowed  her  up ; 
Certainly  this  is  the  day  that  we  looked  for ;  we  have 

found,  we  have  seen  it. 

17  The  Lord  hath  done  that  which  he  devised ; 

He  hath  ^  fulfilled  his  word  that  he  commanded  in  the 

days  of  old ; 
He  hath  thrown  down,  and  hath  not  pitied : 
And  he  hath  caused  the  enemy  to  rejoice  over  thee, 

*  Or,  Jim's/ied 


him,  And  shall  hiss  him  out  of  his  place  ;'  Zeph.  ii.  15,  '  every  one 
that  passeth  by  her  shall  hiss,  and  wag  his  hand ;'  Jer.  xviii.  16, 
2  Kings  xix.  21,  Ps,  xxii.  7. 

that  men  called.  This  should  be  struck  out  on  account  of  the 
metre,  probably  also  *  the  city.'  The  line  gains  greatly  in  force 
by  the  omissions. 

The  perfection  of  beauty :  cf.  Ps.  1.  2,  Ezek.  xvi.  14  (and  with 
reference  to  Tyre),  xxvii.  4,  xxviii.  12. 

The  joy  of  the  whole  earth :  so  Ps.  xlviii.  2,  cf.  Isa.  Ix.  15. 

16.  While  the  traveller,  who  has  no  animosity  against  Jeru- 
salem, views  the  ruins  with  amazement  and  contempt,  the  gestures 
of  her  enemies  express  their  bitter  hate  and  vindictive  joy  at  her 
overthrow.     The  first  line  is  imitated  in  iii.  46. 

opened  their  mouth  wide  ;  cf.  Ps.  xxii.  13,  xxxv.  21.  Lohr 
points  out  that  our  poem  has  several  poinds  of  contact  with  Ps. 
xxxv.  Thus  '  gnash  the  teeth  '  in  this  verse  and  Ps.  xxxv.  16;  *we 
have  swallowed  her  up,'  so  Ps,  xxxv.  25;  'we  have  seen  it,'  cf.  Ps. 
xxxv.  21. 

17.  The  judgement  which  has  come  on  Jerusalem  is  only  what 
Yahweh  had  long  meditated  and  foretold.  Lev.  xxvi.  14  ff.,  Deut. 
xxviii.  15  ff.  are  often  said  to  be  in  the  poet's  mind ;  the  latter  may 
well  be,  the  former  is  on  critical  grounds  more  uncertain.  But  it 
would  be  a  mistake  to  exclude  the  threats  uttered  by  the  prophets. 
*  The  days  of  old  '  need  not  refer  to  remote  antiquity;  the  prophets 
of  the  eighth  century  would  be  reckoned  to  that  period 


LAMENTATIONS  2.  iS,  19  323 

He  hath  exalted  the  horn  of  thine  adversaries. 

Their  heart  cried  unto  the  Lord  :  18 

O  wall  of  the  daughter  of  Zion,  let  tears  run  down  like 

a  river  day  and  night ; 
Give  thyself  no  respite ;  let  not  the  apple  of  thine  eye 

cease. 
Arise,  cry  out  in  the  night,  at  the  beginning  of  the  19 

watches ; 


exalted  the  horn :  see  note  on  3 ;  cf.  Ps.  Ixxxix.  17,  24,  xcii. 
10,  cxii.  9,  cxlviii,  14  ;  i  Sam.  ii.  i,  10. 

18.  It  is  generally  recognized  that  the  beginning  of  the  verse 
is  corrupt.  The  present  text  begins  with  the  statement  that 
<their  heart  cried '  (whose  heart  is  not  said),  and  then  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem  is  bidden  weep,  cry  out,  and  intercede  for  the  life  of  her 
young  children.  The  arrangement  in  the  E.V.,  according  to  which 
the  statement  is  detached  from  the  exhortation,  to  some  extent 
disguises  the  difficulty,  which  is  felt  more  acutely  when  it  is  seen 
that  the  first  line  goes  down  to  *2ion.'  But  a  statement  is  out  of 
place  here,  and  the  reference  to  the  wall  is  also  strange.  The 
verse  should  begin. with  exhortation.  Ewald  read  the  imperative 
'  cry '  lor  the  perfect  '  cried  '  {tsa'aqi  for  isaaq),  and  this  emenda- 
tion has  been  generally  accepted,  though  opinions  differ  as  to  the 
precise  restoration  of  the  rest  of  the  phrase,  e.  g.  '  cry  out  with  thy 
heart,"  cry  outwith  thy  voice.'  For 'O  wall  of  the  daughter  of  Zion' 
several  scholars  read  'O  virgin  daughter  of  Zion,' supposing  that 
the  present  text  has  originated  under  the  influence  of  8.  This  is 
probably  the  correct  solution,  though  other  suggestions  have  been 
made  to  restore  an  original  in  closer  conformity  with  the  present 
text.  Cheyne  reads  'Cry  out  because  of  Jerusalem's  disgrace, 
Zion's  insult.' 

let  tears  run  down  :  cf.  Jer.  xiv.  17. 

apple  of  thine  eye :  cf.  Deut.  xxxii.  10,  Ps.  xvii,  8  for  this 
designation  of  the  pupil  of  the  eye,  though  in  these  passages  it  is 
mentioned  as  an  object  of  peculiar  care. 

19.  This  verse  contains  a  line  too  many.  The  fourth  line 
should  be  struck  out  as  a  later  addition.  The  gloss  was  occasioned 
by  the  feeling  that  the  peril  by  which  the  lives  of  Zion's  children 
was  endangered  needed  to  be  stated.  It  rested,  however,  on  the 
mistaken  view  that  the  children  were  those  of  tender  age,  whose 
pitiful  condition  has  come  before  us  in  11,  12.  But  presumably 
they  are  the  inhabitants  as  a  whole,  and  the  situation  reflected  is 
that  after  the  fall  of  the  city,  not  during  the  privations  of  the  siege. 

Y   2 


324  LAMENTATIONS  2.  20 

Pour  out  thine  heart  like  water  before  the  face  of  the 
Lord  : 

Lift  up  thy  hands  toward  him  for  the  life  of  thy  young- 
children, 

That  faint  for  hunger  at  the  top  of  every  street. 
20      See,  O  Lord,  and  behold,  to  whom  thou  hast  done 
thus! 

Shall  the  women  eat  their  fruit,  the  children  that  are 
dandled  in  the  hands  ? 

Shall  the  priest  and  the  prophet  be  slain  in  the  sanctuary 
of  the  Lord  ? 


The  line  is  based  on  12,  iv.  i ;  cf.  Isa.  1.  20,  Nah.  iii.  10.  Ball 
thinks  tliat  '  for  the  life  of  thy  young  children  '  was  originally  *  for 
what  he  hath  done  unto  thee.' 

at  the  begrinning"  of  the  watches :  at  the  beginning  of  each 
of  the  three  watches  into  which  the  night  was  at  this  time 
divided.  As  the  watchman  utters  his  cry,  the  sleeper  is  aroused, 
called  back  from  the  oblivion  of  slumber  to  the  bitter  realities 
of  life. 

Pour  out  thine  heart :  cf.  11.  The  hands  were  uplifted  in 
prayer,  which  was  often  uttered  in  a  loud  voice. 

20.  Zion,  in  obedience  to  the  poet's  behest,  utters  her  prayer 
to  God,  or  rather  a  remonstrance  vAih  Him  for  the  desolation  He 
has  wrought.  The  questions  are  rhetorical,  they  do  not  plead 
that  the  horrors  enumerated  shall  not  happen  ;  they  have  happened 
already;  is  God  to  be  indifferent  to  them?  For  the  first  cf.  the 
hideous  story  of  the  siege  of  Samaria,  2  Kings  vi.  25-30.  That 
matters  would  come  to  this  extremity  in  the  siege  is  foretold  in 
Deut.  xxviii.  53,  cf.  Jer.  xix.  9,  Lev.  xxvi.  29.  The  closing  words 
at  the  end  of  the  second  line  are  added  to  heighten  the  pitifulness 
of  the  description  by  a  reference  to  the  helpless  infancy  of  the 
victims,  and  the  fond  affection  which  in  happier  days  had  been 
lavished  upon  them  by  those  who  are  now  driven  by  desperate 
hunger  to  so  unnatural  a  deed.  To  this  outrage  on  natural  sancti- 
ties the  poet  adds  an  outrage  on  the  sanctities  of  religion.  Pre- 
sumably the  reference  is  to  the  butchery  of  priests  and  prophets 
in  the  Temple  by  the  Babylonians  after  the  capture  of  the  city. 
The  place  of  the  priest  was  in  the  Temple;  the  prophets  may  have 
taken  refuge  in  it,  believing  (cf.  Rev.  xi.  i,  2)  that  it  at  least  could 
not  be  taken  by  the  enemy. 


LAMENTATIONS  2.  21— 3.  r  325 

The  youth  and  the  old  man  He  on  the  ground  in  the  21 

streets ; 
My  virgins  and  my  young  men  are  fallen  by  the  sword  : 
Thou  hast  slain  them  in  the  day  of  thine  anger ;  thou 

hast  slaughtered,  and  not  pitied. 
Thou  hast  called,  as  in  the  day  of  a  solemn  assembly,  22 

*  my  terrors  on  every  side. 
And  there  was  none  that  escaped  or  remained  in  the  day 

of  the  Lord's  anger  : 
Those  that  I  have  dandled  and  brought  up  hath  mine 

enemy  consumed. 

I  am  the  man  that  hath  seen  affliction  by  the  rod  of  his  3 
wrath. 

^  See  Jer.  vi.  25. 


21.  Further  description  of  the  butchery,  which  spared  neither 
age  nor  sex. 

22.  The  R.V.  means  that  Yahweh  has  summonedall  the  terrors 
of  war,  plague,  and  famine  to  effect  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem  ;  He 
has  called  them  as  if  to  a  festival,  a  festival  of  carnage  from  which 
none  has  escaped.  But  it  is  also  possible,  following  the  LXX,  to 
take  the  word  rendered  'terrors  '  to  mean  'hamlets.'  The  point 
is  in  that  case  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  surrounding  districts  have 
been  summoned  to  Jerusalem,  and  thus  their  fate  also  has  been 
scaled,  so  that  none  have  survived  (so  Ewald  and  Lohr).  But  the 
parallel  with  the  Jeremianic  phrase  '  Terror  round  about '  favours 
the  R.V.  rendering,  and,  as  Budde  points  out,  Zion  in  the  last  line 
simply  laments  the  loss  of  her  own  inhabitants. 

ill.  1-66.     The  Third  Elegy. 

This  poem  is  generally  regarded,  an  J  with  justice,  as  below  the 
level  of  Lam.  i  in  poetic  value,  and  still  more  below  that  of  ii  and 
iv.  It  is  of  the  same  length  as  i  and  ii,  but  whereas  in  these  the 
first  of  each  triad  of  lines  begins  with  the  letter  required  by  the 
alphabetic  scheme,  in  this  each  line  of  the  triad  begins  with  that 
letter  ;  moreover  the  linesof  the  triad  are  less  closely  knit  together 
by  community  of  subject-matter.  The  exigencies  of  this  artificial 
scheme  have  been  to  some  extent  responsible  for  the  literary 
inferiority  of  the  composition. 


326  LAMENTATIONS  3.  2 

He  hath  led  me  and  caused  me  to  walk  in  darkness 
^  and  not  in  light. 

"  Or,  without  light 

The  question  that  arouses  the  keenest  discussion  is  that  of  the 
identity  of  the  speaker.  That  he  is  an  individual  sufferer  is  held 
by  several,  especially  Budde  and  now  Lohr  ;  that  he  speaks  in 
the  name  of  the  community,  or  that  the  community  itself  is  the 
speaker,  is  held  by  a  considerable  number  of  recent  writers. 
Budde's  advocacy  of  the  individual  identification  is  very  interest- 
ing in  view  of  his  strong  vindication  of  the  national  interpretation 
of  the  Servant  of  Yahweh.  Some  of  the  features  in  the  poem  speak 
strongly  for  it,  e.g.  i  and  27;  also  the  change  to  the  plural  in4o- 
47.  where  the  metaphors  are  more  suitable  to  the  experiences 
of  a  people  than  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter.  The  representation 
of  the  people  as  a  man,  in  view  of  its  representation  elsewhere 
as  feminine,  is  also  improbable.  The  inclusion  in  this  book,  which 
is  concerned  with  the  miseries  of  the  nation,  no  doubt  constitutes 
a  presumption  that  here  also  the  nation  is  the  subject.  But  from 
this  we  can  argue  only  as  to  the  interpretation  placed  on  the  poems 
b}''  the  compiler,  not  as  to  that  intended  by  its  author.  And  even 
so  far  as  the  compiler  is  concerned,  if  he  regarded  Jeremiah  as 
the  author  of  the  Lamentations,  he  might  well  have  included  a  poem 
which  he  took  to  be  a  description  of  Jeremiah's  personal  experi- 
ences ;  the  community  ofauthorship  rather  than  of  subject  justifying 
its  combination  with  elegies  on  the  nation. 

The  question  has  passed  into  a  new  stage  with  LOhr's  more 
recent  investigations  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift  for  1904.  He  thinks 
that  the  poem  reflects  inconsistent  situations  (1-24  and  52-66 ; 
also  48-51  and  52-66).  He  points  out  that  6  occurs  as  a  quotation 
in  Ps.  cxliii,  but  there  it  is  in  its  original  form,  here  it  has  been 
altered  to  suit  the  acrostic  scheme.  He  infers  that  1-24  contains 
substantially  the  Psalm  from  which  the  author  of  Ps.  cxiiii  quoted, 
but  as  we  have  it,  it  has  been  turned  into  an  acrostic  by  the 
author  of  our  chapter.  52-66  contains  a  second  Psalm,  in  which 
also  the  speaker  is  an  individual,  and  which  has  similarly  been 
turned  by  the  author  into  an  acrostic.  25-50  contains  the  author's 
own  contribution,  and  most  clearly  betrays  his  intention  to 
represent  the  speaker  as  undertaking  the  role  of  Jeremiah.  This 
theory  is  persuasively  stated  by  Lohr,  and  it  is  by  no  means 
improbable  that,  as  several  scholars  have  thought,  the  poet  speaks 
in  the  character  of  Jeremiah.  It  is  also  the  case  that  the  com- 
position does  seem  not  to  hang  together  throughout.  Still  the 
explanation  offered  is  in  any  case  somewhat  speculative,  and  the 
theory  as  to  origin  a  Httle  difficult  to  accept.  Moreover,  the  pre- 
sent writer  cannot  admit  all  the  references  to  Jeremiah  pointed 


LAMENTATIONS  3.  3-6  327 

Surely  against  mc  he  turneth  his  hand  again  and  again  3 
all  the  day. 

My  flesh  and  my  skin  hath  he  "-  made  old  •,  he  hath  4 

broken  my  bones. 
He  hath  builded  against  me^  and  compassed  me  with  5 

bgall  and  travail. 
oHe  hath  made  me  to  dwell  in  dark  places,  as  those  6 

that  have  been  long  dead. 
*  fOr,  worn  out        ^  See  Deut.  xxix.  18.         *=  See,  Ps.  cxliii.  3. 

out  by  L6hr  to  be  really  such.     But  he  has  rightly  called  attention 
to  phenomena  which  deserve  consideration. 

iii.  1.  The  speaker  points  to  himself  as  one  who  has  'seen/ 
i.  e.  experienced,  'affliction,'  in  that  he  has  been  smitten  by  Yah- 
weh  in  His  anger  ;  cf.  for  the  expression  Isa.  x.  5,  though  the 
reference  here  is  wider,  Ps,  Ixxxix.  32.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
Yahweh  is  unnamed,  but  precarious  to  infer  that  the  author  wrote 
this  elegy  as  a  continuation  of  Lam.  ii.  '  I  am  the  man  '  would  not 
form  a  good  continuation  to  ii.  22,  where  Zion  speaks  as  a  woman. 
Cf.  for  a  similar  reference  to  God  without  naming  Him  Job  iii.  20 
(see  note}.  This  continues  throughout  1-16,  where  the  author  is 
describing  God's  hard  dealings;  also  in  the  prayer  17-21,  where  we 
have  the  second  personal  pronoun,  but  no  direct  address  to  Yahweh. 
Only  when  from  the  depressing  recital  of  the  miseries  inflicted  by 
Him  and  the  pitiful  entreaty,  the  writer  begins  to  speak  of  His  good- 
ness and  mercy,  does  he  abandon  the  pronoun  for  the  name  itself. 

4.  From  the  general  statements  of  1-3,  the  author  now  passes 
to  a  detailed  description  of  his  miseries  under  many  figures, 
frequently  of  a  conventional  character,  drawn  especially  from  Job 
and  the  Psalms. 

made  old:  or  *  worn  away.'     The  constant  tribulations  have 
worn  him  to  a  shadow, 

broken  my  bones:  cf,  Isa.  xxxviii.  13,  Ps.  Ii.  8,  Jer,  1.  17. 

5.  The  strange  combination  '  gall  and  travail '  suggests  that  the 
text  is  in  disorder.     Since  the  word  rendered   'gall'  also  means 

head,'  it  is  natural  that  several  should  take  it  so  here  and  emend 
the  text.  The  simplest  suggestion  is  that  of  Praelorius,  '  and  com- 
passed my  head  with  travail.'  But  this  docs  not  yield  a  felicitous 
sense,  nor  are  other  suggestions  more  fortunate,  Schleusner's 
emendation  'gall  and  wormwood'  would  avoid  the  incongruous 
combination  in  the  present  text. 

6.  This  verse  recurs  in  Ps.  cxliii.  3,     The  speaker  compares  his 


328  LAMENTATIONS  3.  7-13 

7  He  hath  fenced  me  about,  that  I  cannot  go  forth ;  he 

hath  made  my  chain  heavy. 

8  Yea,  when  I  cry  and  call  for  help,  he  shutteth  out  my 

prayer. 

9  He  hath  fenced  up  my  ways  with  hewn  stone,  he  hath 

made  my  paths  crooked 

10  He  Is  unto  me  as  a  bear  lying  in  wait,  as  a  lion  in  secret 

places. 

1 1  He  hath  turned  aside  my  ways,  and  pulled  me  in  pieces ; 

he  hath  made  me  desolate. 
13      He  hath  bent  his  bow,  and  set  me  as  a  mark  for  the 
arrow 

13      He  hath  caused  the  ''^shafts  of  his  quiver  to  enter  into 

my  reins. 

*  Heb.  sons. 

wretched  lot  to  that  of  the  dead  who  dwell  in  the  gloomy  recesses 
of  Sheol.  It  is  not  clear  whether  we  should  render  as  R.V.  or 
substitute  '  those  that  are  for  ever  dead,'  In  the  latter  case  the 
point  seems  to  be  the  hopelessness  of  any  return  to  a  happier 
state  ;  in  the  former  case  the  point  might  be  that  the  dead  of  the 
primaeval  era  dwelt  in  exceptionally  dark  regions  of  Sheol. 
A  reference  to  the  exceptionally  wicked  antediluvians  might  be 
intended.     Ps.  Ixxxviii.  4-6,  10-12  maj'  be  compared. 

*7.  Cf.  Job  xix.  8.  This  chapter  seems  to  have  been  in  the 
writer's  mind  :  for  5  cf.  Job  xix,  12  ;  for  8  cf.  Job  xix.  7.  Here 
a  double  metaphor  is  used  to  describe  his  loss  of  freedom  ;  his 
way  is  blocked,  and  his  heavy  chain  fetters  his  movements, 

8.  The  speaker  complains,  as  Job  does  (xix.  7,  xxx,  20),  that 
God  refuses  to  hear  his  prayer. 

9.  The  meaning  seems  to  be  that  God  has  piled  blocks  of  hewn 
stone  in  his  way,  and  thus  driven  him  into  by-paths  which  lead  in 
a  wrong  direction. 

10.  For  a  similar  combination  of  lion  and  bear  cf.  Hos.  xiii.  8. 
Possibly  this  verse  carries  on  the  figure  of  9  :  driven  into  the 
winding  by-wa3'S,  he  falls  into  the  clutches  of  beasts  of  prey. 

11.  For  the  first  clause  cf.  9  ;  the  second  perhaps  takes  up  the 
metaphor  of  10, 

12.  13.  Job  xvi,  12,  13  seems  to  be  in  the  author's  mind  j  cf, 
also  vi,  4. 


LAMENTATIONS  3.  14-20  329 

I  am  become  a  derision  to  all  my  people;  and  their  14 

song  all  the  day. 
He  hath  filled  me  with  bitterness,  he  hath  sated  me  with  1 5 

wormwood. 

He  hath  also  broken  my  teeth  with  gravel  stones,  he  16 

hath  covered  me  with  ashes. 
And  thou  hast  •'^removed  my  soul  far  off  from  peace;  17 

I  forgat  prosperity. 
And  I  said,  My  strength  is  perished,  and  mine  expecta-  '8 

tion  from  the  Lord. 

Remember  mine  affliction  and  my  b  misery,  the  worm-  19 

wood  and  the  gall. 
My  soul  hath  them  still  in  remembrance,  and  is  bowed  ^o 
down  within  me. 
*  Or,  cast  off  ''Or,  wandering    Or,  outcast  state 

14.  The  verse  recalls  Jer.  xx.  7,  8:  cf.  Job  xii.  4,  xxx.  i,  9; 
Ps.  Ixix.  II,  12.  A  variant  reading  for  'my  people'  is  'peoples.' 
The  choice  between  them  largely  depends  on  the  view  taken  as 

the  question  whether  the  speaker  is  an  individual,  or  the  nation. 

15.  Cf.  Job  ix.  18,  Jer.  ix.  15. 

16.  Cf.  Prov.  XX.  17.  Whether  the  meaning  is  that  gravel  is 
mixed  with  his  bread,  or  that  he  is  fed  with  gravel  instead  of  bread 
(cf.  Matt.  vii.  9),  is  not  clear.  The  correctness  of  the  text  has  been 
doubted.  Chej^ne  suggests  *  And  I  girded  sackcloth  on  my  flesh  ; 
I  rolled  myself  in  ashes  '  {Enc.  Bib.  2699^ 

17.  thou  hast  removed.  The  second  person  is  strange  in  this 
description,  since  up  to  this  point  the  third  person  has  been  used. 
The  rendering  *  my  soul  is  rejected  •  is  possible,  but  in  view  of  31 
and  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  14  improbable.  The  LXX  reads  *  he  has  removed,' 
and  this  is  probably  to  be  accepted.  Ball  suggests  '  And  he  cast 
off  my  soul  for  ever.' 

19,  20.  Now  the  speaker  appeals  to  God  to  remember  his  afflic- 
tion and  wandering  (see  note  on  i.  7,.  It  would  be  more  regular 
if  20  continued  the  appeal,  or  if  19  did  not  contain  a  prayer.  Ldhr 
adopts  the  former  alternative,  rendering  20  '  Remember,  yea 
remember,  that  bowed  down  in  me  is  my  soul.'  Budde  adopts 
the  latter,  rendering  19,  with  a  change  in  punctuation  .'The  memory 
of  my  affliction  and  wandering         is  wormwood  and  gall.' 


330  LAMENTATIONS  3.  21-27 

21  This  I  recall  to  my  mind,  therefore  have  I  hope. 

22  //  is  of\hQ  Lord's  mercies  that  we  are  not  consumed, 

because  his  compassions  fail  not. 

23  They  are  new  every  morning  -,  great  is  thy  faithfulness. 

24  The  Lord  is  my  portion,  saith  my  soul ;  therefore  will 

I  hope  in  him. 

25  The  Lord  is  good  unto  them  that  wait  for  him,  to  the 

soul  that  seeketh  him. 

26  It  is  good  that  a  man  should  hope  and  quietly  wait  for 

the  salvation  of  the  Lord. 

27  It  is  good  for  a  man  that  he  bear  the  yoke  in  his  youth. 

21.  This.  The  structure  favours  the  reference  to  what  has 
preceded  ;  but  it  is  more  suitable  to  refer  it  to  the  beautiful  de- 
scription which  follows,  in  spite  of  the  awkwardness  involved  in 
breaking  into  the  alphabetic  group  of  three  verses  to  which  21 
belongs.  His  hope  is  inspired  by  remembrance  of  God's  unfailing 
mercy. 

22,  23.  There  are  some  metrical  irregularities  in  these  verses. 
For  the  first  person  we  should  probably  read  the  third  (so  Targum 
and  Syriac),  and  X)m\\.  'that,'  *  because,'  rendering  'The  Lord's 
mercies  are  not  spent,  his  compassions  fail  not.'  Since  the  first 
part  of  23  is  too  short,  we  might  transfer  '■  his  compassions '  to  this 
verse  *  New  every  morning  are  his  compassions  ; '  reading  '  they 
fail  not '  in  22. 

24.     Cf.  Ps.  xvi.  5,  Ixxiii.  26,  cxlx.  57,  cxlii.  5. 

25-2'7.  Each  verse  of  this  group  begins  with  the  Hebrew  word 
rendered  'good,'  which  strikes  its  key-note.  First  we  have  an 
expression  of  faith  in  God's  goodness  (25), which  encourages  a  man 
to  wait  patiently  for  God's  deliverance  even  in  the  midst  of  suffer- 
ing (26;,  which  he  is  better  enabled  to  bear  because  he  recognizes 
the  moral  value  of  the  discipline  (27).      Lohr  aptly  compares  Rom. 

V.  3-5- 

26.  The  Hebrew  is  difficult,  but  the  R.V.  gives  what  must  be 
the  general  sense  intended.  Cf.  Ps.  xxxvii.  7,  xl.  4,  Ixii.  i,  Jer. 
xvii.  7. 

27.  The  inference  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  that  the  verse  was  written 
by  a  young  man  has  no  cogency.  It  might  even  better  be  argued 
that  it  is  the  judgement  of  a  man  no  longer  young,  looking  back 
from  the  vantage-ground  of  long  experience,  and  recognizing  the 
value  of  the  discipline  through  which  he  passed  in  his  youth.     Cf. 


LAMENTATIONS  3.  28-33  331 

^  Let  him  sit  alone  and  keep  silence,  because  he  hath  28 

laid  it  upon  him. 
Let  him  put  his  mouth  in  the  dust ;  if  so  be  there  may  29 

be  hope. 
Let  him  give  his  cheek  to  him  that  smiteth  him  ;  let  him  30 

be  filled  full  with  reproach. 

For  the  Lord  will  not  cast  off  for  ever.  31 

For  though  he  cause  grief,  yet  will  he  have  compassion  32 

according  to  the  multitude  of  his  mercies 
For  he  doth   not  afflict  t)  willingly,   nor  grieve   the  33 

children  of  men. 

*  Or,  He  sittdh  alone  &^c.  (vv.  28-30) 
^  Heb./ro;;/  /it's  licmi. 

the  fine  exposition  of  the  thought  in  Heb.  xii.  7-1 1.  The  reading 
*  from  his  j'outh '  found  in  several  Hebrew  MSS.  and  in  some 
Versions  is  probably  due  to  a  scribe's  blunder.  Cheyne,  on  the 
ground  that  our  present  text  introduces  an  idea  which  is  not 
further  utilized,  reads  with  comparatively  slight  change,  'It  is  good 
that  he  bear  mutely      the  rebuke  of  Yahweh'  {Enc.  Bib.  2699). 

28-30.  In  view  of  the  considerations  brought  forward  in  25- 
27,  let  the  man  who  is  suffering  at  God's  hand  bear  it  with  resigna- 
tion and  self-abasement,  and  even  endure  buffeting  and  contumely 
from  his  fellows.     For  28  cf.  i.  i,  ii.  10,  Jer.  xv.  17. 

29.  There  is  no  parallel  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  first 
clause  ;  the  attitude  of  prostration  with  the  face  on  the  ground  is 
a  t3'pically  Oriental  expression  of  complete  and  silent  submission. 
The  phrase  '  to  lick  the  dust '  imports  an  abject  element  into  the 
surrender. 

30.  Cf.  Isa.  1.  6,  in  a  soliloquy  by  the  Servant  of  Yahweh  ;  Matt. 
V.  39  ;  also  Job  xvi,  10. 

31-33.  The  dumb  submission  enjoined  in  28-30  is  recommend- 
ed by  the  assurance  that  Yahweh's  rejection  of  the  sufferer  will  not 
be  permanent  (31),  since  His  mercy  will  ultimately  incline  Him  to 
compassion  (32),  for  it  is  from  no  delight  in  inflicting  pain  that  He 
chastises  the  children  of  men  (33). 

31.  Cf.  Ps.  XXX.  5  (see  R.V.  marg.;,  Ixxvii.  7-10,  ciii.9,  Isa.  Ivii. 
16,  Mic.  vii.  18.  Several  scholars  think  that  on  metrical  grounds 
the  verse  is  too  short.  The  easiest  suggestion  is  to  insert 
'man'  as  the  object,  but  '  children  of  men "  would  be  less  bald. 
Ball  suggests  *  his  soul,"  cf  his  emendation  of  17. 


332  LAMENTATIONS  3.  34-39 

34  To  crush  under  foot  all  the  prisoners  of  the  earth, 

35  To  turn  aside  the  right  of  a  man  before  the  face  of  the 

Most  High, 
3^      To  subvert  a  man  in  his  cause,  the  Lord  ^approveth 
not. 

37  Who  is  he  that  saith,  and  it  cometh  to  pass,  when  the 

Lord  commandeth  it  not  ? 

38  Out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Most  High  cometh  there  not 

evil  and  good  ? 

39  Wherefore  doth  a  living  man  complain,  t>a  man  for  the 

punishment  of  his  sins  ? 
*  Heb.  seeth  not.  ^  Or,  a  man  that  is  in  his  sins 


34-36.  The  passage  is  difficult.  The  R.V.  rendering  is  accepted 
by  several,  but  others  consider  that  '  approveth  '  is  an  illegitimate 
translation.  The  alteration  of  one  consonant  would  yield  this 
sense.  It  is  better  to  retain  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  (see 
margin),  and  take  the  passage  as  interrogative,  *  Doth  not  the 
Lord  see?'  The  exigencies  of  the  acrostic  scheme  are  probably 
responsible  for  the  infelicity  of  the  Hebrew.  The  evils  which 
Yahweh  marks  with  disapproval  are,  first,  the  oppression  of  cap- 
tives by  their  conquerors,  or  prisoners  by  those  in  whose  power 
they  are  ;  and  secondly,  the  withholding  or  perversion  of  justice. 

37-39.  Yahweh  has  cognizance  of  all  the  wrong  wrought  on 
the  earth  (34-36),  for  nothing  is  done  by  man  save  by  His  permis- 
sion (37);  both  calamity  and  prosperity  follow  His  behest  (38)  ;  let 
man  refrain  from  complaint,  his  suffering  is  recompence  for  his 
sin  (39). 

37.  Cf.  Ps.  xxxiii.  9 ;  the  first  part  of  the  verse  refers  here  to 
man,  though  the  expression  is  more  suitably  used  of  God. 

38.  Cf.  Amos  iii.  6,  Isa.  xlv.  7.  The  Most  High,  the  Supreme 
Lord  of  the  universe,  controls  the  whole  course  of  history;  evil 
cannot  be  wrought,  apart  from  His  permission.  The  Satan  cannot 
touch  Job  till  God  gives  him  leave.  The  speculative  problem 
created  for  Theism  by  such  a  statement  is  not  before  the  writer's 
mind. 

39.  This  sentence  is  difficult.  Some  take  it  to  contain  question 
and  answer,  '  Of  what  should  a  living  man  complain  ?  Each 
(should  complain)  of  his  sins.'  Probably,  however,  the  R.V. 
rendering  is  preferable;  the  meaning  being  that  man  should  not 


LAMENTATIONS  3.  40-44  333 

Let  us  search  and  try  our  ways,  and  turn  again  to  the  40 

Lord. 
Let  us  lift  up  our  heart  with  our  hands  unto  God  in  the  4^ 

heavens. 
We  have  transgressed  and  have  rebelled;  thou  hast  42 

not  pardoned. 

Thou  hast  ^  covered  with  anger  and  pursued  us ;  thou  43 

hast  slain,  thou  hast  not  pitied. 
Thou  hast  covered  thyself  with  a  cloud,  that  our  prayer  44 

should  not  pass  through. 

*  fOr,  covered  thyself 


indulge  in  murmurs  at  his  misfortunes,  they  are  the  penalty  for 
his  sin.  The  word  rendered  '  the  punishment  of  his  sins '  more 
commonly,  it  is  true,  means  'sin,'  and  this  favours  the  former 
interpretation.  But  since  the  two  previous  verses  of  the  group 
contain  questions  without  answers,  it  is  more  symmetrical  to 
adopt  the  same  here.  The  point  of  the  adjective  '  living '  is  not 
clear.  It  may  be,  so  long  as  a  man  has  life,  he  has  no  reason  for 
complaint ;  his  punishment  falls  short  of  the  death  which  is  the  due 
meed  of  his  sins.  (For  an  emendation  by  Cheyne  see  Euc.  Bib. 
2699.) 

40-42.  The  recognition  that  suflfering  is  due  to  sin  (39)  should 
lead  to  self-examination  and  repentance  (40),  followed  by  prayer 
(41)  and  penitent  confession  (42). 

41.  Lifting  of  hands  was  a  common  gesture  in  ancient  prayer. 
But  the  formal  exercise,  to  be  effective,  must  carry  the  heart  with 
it.  Perhaps  the  thought  is,  let  us  offer  our  heart  on  our  hands,  i.e. 
present  the  whole  heart  to  God  in  prayer. 

42.  The  last  clause  constitutes  a  transition  to  the  next  group. 

43.  With  this  verse  a  description  of  the  miseries  of  the  people 
begins,  which  continues  to  47. 

covered.  According  to  the  R.V.  text,  the  meaning  is  that  God 
has  overwhelmed  His  people  with  anger  and  pursued  them.  But 
this  can  hardly  be  the  meaning;  we  should  have  expected  the 
order  of  the  verbs  to  be  inverted,  and  the  following  verse  suggests 
that  we  should  render,  as  in  the  margin,  'covered  ihyself.^  He 
had  clothed  Himself  in  His  fiery  indignation  and  pursued  His 
people,  slaying  without  mercy. 

44.  That  God  dwelt  in  clouds  and  darkness  is  a  thought  which 


334  LAMENTATIONS  3.  45-51 

45  Thou  hast  made  us  as  the  offscouring  and  refuse  in  the 

midst  of  the  peoples. 

46  All  our  enemies  have  opened  their  mouth  wide  against 

us. 
,^7      Fear  and  the  pit  are  come  upon  us,  ^^  devastation  and 
destruction. 

48  Mine  eye  runneth  down  with  rivers  of  water,  for  the 

destruction  of  the  daughter  of  my  people. 

49  Mine  eye  poureth  down,  and  ceaseth  not,  without  any 

intermission, 

50  Till  the  Lord  look  down,  and  behold  from  heaven. 

51  Mine  eye  affecteth  my  soul,  because  of  all  the  daughters 

of  my  city. 

*  Or,  tumult 

frequently  recurs  in  Hebrew  poetry,  where  it  is  used  with  the 
finest  effects.  Here  the  thought  is  that  God  has  thus  wrapped 
Himself  in  cloud  that  the  prayer  of  His  people  may  not  penetrate 
to  Him. 

45.  Cf.  I  Cor.  iv.  13.  The  meaning  is  that  Israel  is  reduced  to 
a  position  of  the  utmost  humiliation  in  the  sight  of  the  nations ;  cf. 

46.  Taken  from  ii.  16. 

4'7.  Pear  and  the  pit :  see  on  Jer.  xlviii.  43.  There  is  a 
slighter  assonance  in  the  Hebrew  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse, 
which  is  imitated  in  the  R.V. 

48.  Cf.  i.  16,  Jer.  xiii.  17  ;  a  still  closer  parallel  to  the  first 
clause  is  found  in  Ps.  cxix.  136,  for  the  last  clause  see  ii.  11.  This 
verse  is  connected  with  the  next  group  by  the  reference  to  'mine 
eye.' 

49-51.  Lehr  rightly  points  out  that  50  would  stand  better  at 
the  end  of  the  group  than  51,  and  suggests  that  the  original  order 
may  have  been  51,  49,  50. 

49.  For  the  incessant  weeping  cf.  Jer.  ix.  i. 

51.  The  sense  is  obscurely  expressed.  The  first  clause  is 
generally  taken  to  mean  that  the  constant  weeping  has  inflamed 
his  eyes  and  is  causing  him  physical  pain,  '  my  soul '  meaning 
simply  '  myself.'  The  remainder  of  the  verse  has  been  very 
variously  interpreted  ;  the  sense  is  probably  that  the  sufferings  of 
the  women  of  Jerusalem  have  caused  him  to  weep  thus  incessantly. 


LAMENTATIONS  3.  52-59  335 

They  have  chased  me  sore  Hke  a  bird,  that  are  mine  52 

enemies  without  cause. 
They  have  cut  off  my  life  in  the  dungeon,  and  have  cast  53 

a  stone  upon  me. 
Waters  flowed  over  mine  head ;  I  said,  I  am  cut  off.      54 

I  called  upon  thy  name,  O  Lord,  out  of  the  lowest  55 

dungeon. 
Thou  heardest  my  voice;   hide  not  thine  ear  at  my  56 

breathing,  at  my  cry. 
Thou  drewest  near  in  the  day  that  I  called  upon  thee :  57 

thou  saidst,  Fear  not. 

O  Lord,  thou  hast  pleaded  the  causes  of  niy  soul ;  thou  58 

hast  redeemed  my  life. 
O  Lord,  thou  hast  seen  my  wrong;  judge  thou  my  59 

cause. 

52.  The  speaker  turns  now  to  his  own  afflictions,  of  which  he 
gives  a  metaphorical  description.  That  the  language  is  figurative 
is  clear  in  52,  but  we  should  probably  take  the  reference  to 
imprisonment  in  the  dungeon  in  the  same  way.  If  the  poet  had 
Jeremiah'sexperiences  in  mind  he  has  not  kept  closely  to  them  ;  54 
in  particular  had  no  counterpart  in  the  experience  described  injer. 
xxxviii.  6-13,  but  is  excluded  by  the  fact  that  there  was  no  water 
in  his  dungeon.  A  stone  may  have  been  placed  over  the  mouth  of 
the  pit  in  which  he  was  confined,  but  we  have  no  reference  to  it  in 
the  story.  The  words  may  mean,  however,  'have  cast  stones  at 
me,'  and  this  would  be  quite  inconsistent  with  any  reference  in 
the  clause  to  Jeremiah's  experience.  Ball,  however,  reads  for  53*^ 
'They  brought  me  down  to  Abaddon,'  an  attractive  but  not  quite 
easy  emendation.  The  figures  of  pursuit  by  hunters,  of  confinement 
in  dungeons,  of  waters  going  over  the  head,  are  quite  common 
especially  in  the  Psalms. 

55-57.  The  speaker  looks  back  at  his  prayer  in  the  dungeon 
and  God's  response.  Verse  56"^,  '  hide  not  .  .  .  cry,'  seems  to 
contain  the  gist  of  the  prayer  uttered  in  the  dungeon. 

58.  The  speaker  is'  still  looking  back  on  an  experience  which 
has  come  to  an  end.  Yahweh  has  acted  as  his  advocate  in  the  law- 
court,  and  secured  a  verdict  for  His  client. 

69-66.   Now  the  speaker  passes   from   the    former  situation 


336  LAMENTATIONS  3.  60— 4.  i 

60  Thou  hast  seen  all  their  vengeance  and  all  their  devices 

against  me. 

61  Thou  hast  heard  their  reproach,  O  Lord,  and  all  their 

devices  against  me ; 

62  The  lips  of  those  that  rose  up  against  me,  and  their 

imagination  against  me  all  the  day. 

63  Behold  thou  their  sitting  down,  and  their  rising  up  ; 

I  am  their  song. 

64  Thou  wilt  render  unto  them  a  recompence,  O  Lord, 

according  to  the  work  of  their  hands. 

65  Thou  wilt  give  them  ^  hardness  of  heart,  thy  curse  unto 

them. 

66  Thou  wilt  pursue  them  in  anger,  and  destroy  them  from 

under  the  heavens  of  the  Lord. 

4      How  is  the  gold  become  dim  !  /low  is  the  most  pure 
gold  changed ! 

*  fOr,  blindness    Heb.  covering. 

which  he  has  been  describing,  and  invokes  Yahweh's  help  against 
the  enemies  from  whom  he  is  at  present  suffering. 

62.  lips  :  i.e.  utterances.  It  is  governed  by  '  thou  hast  heard' 
in  61. 

63.  sitting  down  and  rising-  up  :  cf.  Ps.  cxxxix.  2  ;  it  is  a  com- 
prehensive expression  for  a  man's  hfe  in  generah  For  the  last 
clause  cf.  14. 

64.  Cf.  Ps.  xxviii.  4. 

65.  thy  curse  unto  them:  to  be  taken  as  an  imprecation,  not  as 
dependent  on  '  give.' 

iv.  1-22.  The  Fourth  Elegy. 
This  chapter  is  an  acrostic  poem,  which  adopts  the  same  alpha- 
betic order  as  ii  and  iii.  It  is,  however,  shorter  than  the  first  three 
poems,  since  each  alphabetic  group  consists  of  two  lines  only 
instead  of  three.  It  is  very  closely  related  in  content  to  the 
second  elegy,  and  probably  proceeds  from  the  same  author. 
Points  of  contact  between  the  two  poems  are  the  emphasis  on 
the  responsibility  of  the  religious  leaders  for  the  catastrophe,  and 
the  compassion  felt  for  the  sufferings  of  the  children.     Each  poem 


LAMENTATIONS  4.  2  337 

The  stones  of  the  sanctuary  arc  poured  out  at  the  top 

of  every  street. 
The  precious  sons  of  Zion,  '^  comparable  to  fine  gold,  3 

•^  Heb.  that  may  be  weighed  against. 

seems  to  have  been  written  by  an  eye-witness.  There  is  also 
a  similarity  in  the  arrangement,  according  to  which  both  fall  into 
two  main  sections.  The  differences  even  more  strongly  suggest 
unity  of  authorship,  since  the  two  poems  are  apparently  designed 
to  be  mutually  complementary.  For  the  date  see  the  Introduction 
to  ii. 

The  poem  opens  with  a  contrast  between  the  former  glory  of 
Zion's  sons  and  their  present  wretchedness.  This  is  illustrated 
by  the  unnatural  cruelty  of  the  mothers  to  their  children,  and  the 
miserable  condition  of  those  once  surrounded  with  luxury.  Their 
sin  must  be  greater  than  Sodom's,  since  their  lingering  agony  is 
so  much  worse  than  Sodom's  swift  overthrow.  The  poet  then 
describes  once  more  the  extremities  to  which  famine  has  reduced 
the  nobles,  and  the  unnatural  deeds  it  has  caused  the  mothers  to 
commit.  So  terrible,  so  unexpected  a  punishment,  is  due  to  the 
sins  of  priests  and  prophets,  who  are  as  unclean  as  lepers,  through 
the  shedding  of  innocent  blood.  Then  the  poet  speaks  of  the  vain 
hopes  of  help  from  Egypt ;  and  passes  on  to  describe  the  closing 
period  of  the  siege,  and  the  capture  of  the  king.  He  closes  with 
a  bitter  reference  to  Edom's  exultation,  predicting  that  her  turn 
will  come,  while  the  sin  of  Zion  is  now  fully  expiated. 

iv.  1.  The  fine  gold  and  the  stones  are  not  to  be  taken  literally, 
but,  as  2  explains,  they  are  the  citizens  of  Zion.  The  word 
rendered  '■  is  become  dim '  occurs  nowhere  else  ;  if  the  text  is 
correct  this  translation  may  be  accepted.  The  verb  rendered  *  is 
changed'  has  an  Aramaic  form,  its  correctness  is  dubious;  Nsldeke 
and  Lohr  point  differently  and  read  *  is  become  odious ',  but 
Bickell'ssuggestionthatwe  should  delete  the  last  consonant  and  take 
the  word  as  an  adjective  meaning  'old'  (jydshdn)  is  preferable  : 
*  How  is  the  ancient  gold  become  dim  the  most  pure  gold.' 
Cheyne's  suggestion  '  Sheba's  gold  '  is  not  so  easy. 

stones  of  the  sanctuary.  We  might  also  render  'holystones.' 
But  neither  is  satisfactory ;  the  representation  that  at  the  street 
comers  the  stones  of  the  Temple  were  poured  out  is  too  improbable 
even  in  a  metaphor.  The  sense  required  is  '  precious  stones  ; ' 
Budde  gains  it  by  emendation ;  others  think  the  present  text  may 
be  so  interpreted. 

2.  The  explanation  of  i  :  the  fine  gold  is  the  precious  sons  of 
Zion  ;  they  too  are  the  precious  stones,  esteemed  of  no  more  worth 
than  crockery  made  of  common  clay. 

II  Z 


338  LAMENTATIONS  4.  3-6 

How  are  they  esteemed  as  earthen  pitchers,  the  work 

of  the  hands  of  the  potter  ! 
Even  the  jackals  draw  out  the  breast,  they  give  suck  to 

their  young  ones : 
The  daughter  of  my  people  is  become  cruel,  like  the 
ostriches  in  the  wilderness. 
j  The  tongue  of  the  sucking  child  cleaveth  to  the  roof 

"of  his  mouth  for  thirst : 
\  The  young  children  ask  bread,  and  no  man  breaketh 
it  unto  them. 
They  that  did  feed  delicately  are  desolate  in  the  streets  : 
I  They  that  were  brought  up  in  scarlet  embrace  dunghills. 
For «-  the  iniquity  of  the  daughter  of  my  people  is  greater 
than  ^  the  sin  of  Sodom, 

"  Or,  ihe  punishment  of  the  iniquity 
^  Or,  the  punishment  of  the  sin 

3.  The  jackals,  contemptible  and  greedy  beasts  of  prey  as  they 
are,  suckle  their  whelps  ;  but  Judah  has  become  cruel  like  the 
ostrich.  For  the  'cruelty'  of  the  ostrich  cf.  Job  xxxix.  13-17  (with 
the  notes).  But  the  idea  that  Judah  is  cruel  to  her  children  is 
not  what  we  expect,  nor  very  intelligible.  We  expect  rather  that 
the  mothers  have  under  the  pressure  of  famine  become  unnatural 
to  their  little  ones,  as  the  ostrich  to  her  young.  It  is  better,  there- 
fore, to  read  '  the  daughters  of  my  people  are  become  cruel '  (so 
Bickell,  Budde).  The  change  to  the  more  familiar  '  daughter  of 
my  people  '  was  very  natural. 

4.  The  two  lines  refer  to  children  in  different  stages.  The 
mother  withholds  her  breast  from  the  child  who  can  take  no  other 
food  ;  while  the  children  that  can,  though  still  unweaned,  eat 
bread,  have  no  one  who  will  share  the  scanty  supply  with  them. 
Cf.  ii.  12. 

5.  It  is  disputed  whether  the  reference  is  still  to  the  children 
so  delicately  nurtured  and  daintily  clad,  or  to  the  rich  people 
generally,  without  reference  to  age.  The  second  line  favours 
the  former  view,  if  it  is  correctly  rendered  in  R.V.;  but  several 
prefer  to  translate  '  borne  on  scarlet,'  i.  e.  reclining  on  couches  or 
litters  upholstered  with  stuffs  dyed  scarlet  and  therefore  very 
costly.  This  favours  the  latter  view.  There  is  no  cogent  reason 
for  choosing  either. 

6.  The  text  is  probably  to  be  preferred  to  the  margin.     That 


LAMENTATIONS  4.  7-9  339 

That  was  overthrown  as  in  a  moment,  and  no  hands 

'I  were  laid  upon  her. 
Her  ^  nobles  were  purer  than  snow,  they  were  whiter  7 

than  milk, 
They  were  more  ruddy  in  body  than  c  rubies,  their 

polishing  was  as  of  sapphire  : 
Their  visage  is  <^l blacker  than  a  coal;   they  are  not  8 

known  in  the  streets  : 
Their  skin  cleaveth  to  their  bones ;  it  is  withered,  it  is 

become  like  a  stick. 
They  that  be  slain  with  the  sword  are  better  than  they  9 

that  be  slain  with  hunger ; 
For  these  «  pine  away,  stricken  through,  for  want  of  the 
.    fruits  of  the  field. 

Ovyfcll    See  2  Sam.  iii.  29.  ^  Or,  Nazirttes  ^  fOr, 

corals         ^  Heb.  darker  than  blackness.         ®  H&h.flow  away. 


the  sin  of  Judah  is  greater  than  that  of  Sodom  (cf.  Ezek.  xvi. 
47-50,  Matt.  xi.  23,  24),  follows  from  the  difference  in  their  fate ; 
Sodom  fell  by  a  sudden  catastrophe,  and  did  not  linger  in  pain  ; 
Judah  perished  in  a  long-drawn-out  agony,  from  which  no  cir- 
cumstance of  horror,  indignity,  cruelty,  and  privation  was  missing. 

no  hands  were  laid  upon  her :  more  literally  *  no  hands 
whirled  round  about  her.'  The  meaning  is  apparently  that  Sodom 
fell  at  the  hand  of  God.  Some  render  '  none  wrung  their  hands  ;' 
i.  e.  the  catastrophe  was  too  swift  to  leave  time  for  this.  Ball 
reads,  'and  their  ruin  tarried  not.' 

7,  8.  In  a  striking  contrast  the  poet  brings  out  the  difference 
between  the  appearance  of  the  nobles  in  their  time  of  luxurious 
living  and  in  the  privations  of  the  siege.  Then  they  were  fair, 
handsome,  and  well-nourished  ;  now  unrecognizable,  they  are  so 
black  and  shrivelled  (cf.  Job  xxx.  30),  and  reduced  to  skin  and 
bone  (cf.  Job  xix.  20).  The  second  line  of  7  is  difficult.  The 
word  rendered  'polishing'  is  more  literally  'shape;'  but  this 
gives  no  satisfactory  meaning.  Of  suggested  emendations.  Ball's 
'their  body  was  a  sapphire,'  and  Cheyne's  'their  skin  glitters 
like  coral,  (even)  the  bright  colour  of  their  flesh  '  {Enc.  Bib.  4283), 
may  be  mentioned. 

nobles :    the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  is  '  Nazirites  ; ' 
but  it  bears  the  wider  sense  here. 
Z  2 


340  LAMENTATIONS  4.  10-13 

^°      The  hands  of  the  pitiful  women  have  sodden  their  own 
children ; 
They  were  their  meat  in  the  destruction  of  the  daughter 
of  my  people. 

1 1  The  Lord  hath  accomplished  his  fury,  he  hath  poured 

out  his  fierce  anger ; 
And  he  hath  kindled  a  fire  in  Zion,  which  hath  devoured 
the  foundations  thereof. 

12  The  kings  of  the  earth  believed  not,  neither  all  the  in- 

habitants of  the  world, 
That  the  adversary  and  the  enemy  should  enter  into 
the  gates  of  Jerusalem. 

13  //  is  because  of  the  sins  of  her  prophets,  and  the  iniqui- 

ties of  her  priests, 

9.  The  swift  death  on  the  battlefield  was  better  than  the  slow 
death  by  famine.  In  the  second  line  Ball  reads,  *  For  they,  they 
passed  away  with  a  stab  suddenly  in  the  field.'  The  Hebrew  is 
unusual,  and  the  text  has  often  been  suspected. 

10.  Cf.  ii.  20.  Hunger  drives  even  the  pitiful,  affectionate 
mothers  to  this  desperate  extremity. 

11.  The  language  of  the  second  line  is,  of  course,  metaphorical. 

12.  The  meaning  is  not  that  Jerusalem  was  too  strongly  forti- 
fied to  be  captured.  The  author,  as  is  the  case  with  other  Hebrew 
writers,  thinks  of  the  nations  as  sharing  the  fanatical  belief  of  the 
Jews,  so  often  rebuked  by  Jeremiah,  in  the  inviolability  of  Zion. 
This  conviction,  which  went  back  to  the  preaching  of  Isaiah,  had 
been  greatly  strengthened  by  the  deliverance  of  the  capital  from 
capture  by  Sennacherib  in  701  b.  c,  while  the  people's  assurance 
of  its  good  standing  with  Yahweh  had  been  confirmed  by  its 
acceptance  of  the  Deuteronomic  Law.  Hence  the  possibility 
that  Yahweh  might  be  so  angry  with  His  people  that  He  would 
even  destroy  His  own  city,  as  Micah  had  threatened  in  words 
long  remembered  by  the  people  (see  Jer.  xxvi.  17-19  with  the 
notes),  seemed  to  have  passed  away.  The  writer  of  this  verse  had 
obviously  held  this  belief,  against  which  Jeremiah  so  solemnly 
protested.     He  could  not  therefore  be  identified  with  Jeremiah. 

13.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  poet  fixes  the  responsibility  for 
Zion's  fate  on  her  religious  leaders.  So  Jeremiah  had  singled  out 
the  priests  and  prophets  (Jer.  v.  31,  vi.  13,  xxiii.  11  ff.).  The 
accusation  in  the  second  line  adds  a  feature  in  the  indictment, 


LAMENTATIONS  4.  14,  15  341 

That  have  shed  the  blood  of  the  just  in  the  midst  of 

her. 
They  wander  as  blind  men  in  the  streets,  they  are  pel-  14 

luted  with  blood, 
So  that  men  cannot  touch  their  garments. 
Depart  ye,  they  cried  unto  them,  Unclean  !  depart,  de-  15 

part,  touch  not : 

which  is  not  directly  attested  elsewhere.  The  narrative  in  Jer. 
xxvi  is  hardly  relevant,  since  their  desire  to  kill  Jeremiah  was 
due  to  special  causes ;  and  Jehoiakim  seems  to  have  been  most  to 
blame  for  the  execution  of  Uriah. 

The  construction  of  the  verse  is  a  little  difficult.  It  does  not 
connect  with  14,  and  obviously  not  with  12.  We  may  either 
suppose  that  it  connects  with  11,  the  insertion  of  12  between 
them  being  due  to  the  exigencies  of  the  acrostic  scheme  (so  LOhr), 
or  treat  it  as  an  independent  sentence  (so  R.V.).  The  latter 
is  much  better,  and  we  must  either  supply  a  verb  (as  R.V.)  or 
preferably  insert  one  in  the  Hebrew,  e.g.  'they  have  entered' 
{bd't'i),  which  might  easily  have  fallen  out  after  '  her  prophets ' 
(so  Budde).     The  metre  gains  by  the  insertion. 

14.  The  passage  is  not  quite  clear;  the  R.V.  gives  the  probable 
sense.  The  verse  places  us  in  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem.  These 
priests  and  prophets  wander  blindly  in  the  streets  ;  they  are 
polluted  with  the  innocent  blood  they  had  shed  in  the  time  of 
their  power,  so  that  men  shrink  from  them  as  they  stagger  by, 
lest  they  should  contract  ceremonial  defilement  from  their  gar- 
ments. 

as  blind  men.  Lohr  suspects  a  gloss.  But  there  is  a  real 
point  in  the  phrase.  It  depicts  the  helpless  perplexity  which  has 
overtaken  these  rulers,  once  so  confident  and  moving  with  such 
directness  to  their  goal  along  an  unscrupulous  road.  Now  the 
ground  is  giving  way  beneath  their  feet  and  their  universe 
tumbling  in  ruin  about  their  ears. 

15.  Here  those  who  shrank  from  contact  with  these  blood- 
stained murderers  (14),  call  out  to  them  to  leave  the  city  on 
account  of  their  uncleanness.  The  reference  in  '  Unclean ! ' 
seems  to  be  to  the  cry  of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiii.  45).  It  is  no 
objection  to  this  that  it  is  the  people,  not  the  unclean  person,  who 
utter  the  cry.  It  is  just  the  point  that  the  people  do  utter  it. 
The  murderers,  since  they  were  not  lepers,  would  obviously  not 
feel  under  any  obligation  to  declare  themselves  unclean.  But  the 
people  hurl  the  cry  at  them,  execrating  them  .as  no  better  than 
lepers,  whose  touch  brought  ceremonial  pollution  and  whose  lot 


342  LAMENTATIONS  4.  t6,  17 

^  When  they  fled  away  and  wandered,  men  said  among 
the  nations,  They  shall  no  more  sojourn  /lere. 

16  The  ^^  anger  of  the  Lord  hath  divided  them  ;  he  will 

no  more  regard  them  : 
They  respected  not  the  persons  of  the  priests,  they 
favoured  not  the  elders. 

1 7  Our  eyes  do  yet  fail  121  looking  for  our  vain  help  : 

a  Or,  Yea  ^  Heb. /«<:<?. 


it  was  to  be  hounded  from  the  society  of  men.  The  verse  is 
overladen.  In  the  first  line  the  words  *  they  cried  unto  them  '  are 
apparently  an  explanatory  gloss,  and  the  repetition  of  'depart'  in 
the  second  half  of  the  line  is  due  to  dittography.  The  second  line 
in  its  present  text  seems  to  mean  that  even  after  they  had  left 
Jerusalem  and  fled  to  foreign  countries,  they  were  not  permitted 
to  settle  down.  But  it  is  too  long.  The  simplest  expedient  is  to 
strike  out  '  they  said,' which  is  an  explanatory  gloss  like  that  in 
the  first  line.  Perhaps  we  should  also  omit  *  among  the  nations,' 
which  may  have  been  a  marginal  gloss  on  i6^  But  the  text  is 
also  corrupt.  The  word  rendered  *  fled  away  *  {imisu)  occurs 
nowhere  else,  and  its  sense  is  very  dubious.  Lohr  reads  'When 
they  were  pleased  {rdtsn)  to  wander.'  But  this  spoils  the  asson- 
ance in  the  original ;  moreover  one  is  so  forcibly  reminded,  in 
reading  the  Hebrew,  of  Gen.  iv.  12,  14,  that  we  instinctivel}' 
correct  the  text  in  accordance  with  it  and  substitute  nadii,  which 
requires  no  alteration  in  the  English  rendering.  Thus  the  fate  of 
Cain  falls  on  those  who  were  guilty  of  his  sin. 

A  clever  but  too  drastic  restoration  of  14,  15  by  Cheyne  may  be 
seen  in  the  Enc.  Bib.  2700. 

16.  The  fate  of  the  murderers.  Yahweh  Himself  has  scattered 
them  ;  they  are  driven  like  Cain  from  His  presence  ;  priests  and 
elders  though  they  were,  no  respect  was  shown  to  them.  For 
'elders 'we  should  have  expected  'prophets;'  the  LXX  reads 
this,  and  in  spite  of  the  suspicion  that  the  easier  text  arouses,  it 
may  be  the  original  which  has  been  altered  in  the  Hebrew 
through  the  influence  of  v.  12. 

The  anger  of  the  IiOBD  ;  literally  '  the  face  of  Yahweh,' 
which  perhaps  means  rather  'Yahweh  Himself;'  cf.  Exod.  xxxiii. 
14,  15  (where  it  is  rendered  'presence'),  2  Sam.  xvii.  11  (see 
R.V.  margin),  Isa.  Ixiii.  9,  Pss.  xxi.  9  (margin),  xxxiv,  16. 

1*7.  The  poet  reckons  himself  with  those  who  had  vainly  hoped 
for  help  from  Egypt,  a  hope  which  Jeremiah  had  emphatically 
declared  to  be  groundless.     See  Jer.  xxxvii.  5-10. 


LAMENTATIONS  4.  18-20  343 

In  our  watching  we  have  watched  for  a  nation  that  could 

not  save. 
They  hunt  our  steps,  that  we  cannot  go  in  our  streets  :  18 
Our  end  is  near,  our  days  are  fulfilled ;  for  our  end  is 

come. 
Our  pursuers  were  swifter  than  the  eagles  of  the  heaven :  19 
They  chased  us  upon  the  mountains,  they  laid  wait  for 

us  in  the  wilderness. 
The  breath  of  our  nostrils,  the  anointed  of  the  Lord,  20 

was  taken  in  their  pits  ; 


watching":    the   word    occurs    only   here  ;    it    is    generally 
rendered  *  watch-tower.' 

18.  The  poet  vividly  describes  the  situation  during  the  siege. 
If  the  R.V.  is  right,  the  point  is  that  the  besiegers  commanded 
the  streets  from  the  siege-towers,  so  that  it  was  dangerous  for 
the  inhabitants  to  walk  about  in  them.  But  the  word  rendered 
'  streets '  means  'a  broad,  open  place,'  not  necessarily  within  the 
city  itself.  The  meaning  may  be,  that  after  the  retreat  of  the 
Egyptians  and  the  renewal  of  the  siege,  the  inhabitants  were 
unable  to  walk  any  longer  outside  the  city  walls. 

19.  It  is  often  supposed  that  the  passage  refers,  like  the 
succeedmg  verse,  to  the  capture  of  Zedekiah  (2  Kings  xxv.  4-6) 
and  his  retinue,  in  which  the  poet  was  himself  included.  This  is 
uncertain  ;  the  reference  is  probablj''  wider,  and  embraces  all  the 
fugitives  who  were  captured.  For  the  first  line  cf.  Jer.  iv.  13. 
The  terms  employed  do  not  correspond  well  to  the  circumstances 
of  Zedekiah's  capture. 

20.  The  metaphor  from  hunting  is  continued.  It  is  not  unusual 
for  hunters  to  dig  pits  into  which  their  victims  may  fall,  sometimes 
to  be  impaled  for  a  lingering  death  on  the  stakes  they  have  fixed 
in  it.  The  Babylonians  succeeded  in  trapping  Zedekiah.  With 
loyal  personal  affection  for  the  king  on  whom  he  had  set  his  hopes, 
the  poet  speaks  of  him  as  '  the  breath  of  our  nostrils,'  as  if  their  con- 
tinued existence  was  bound  up  with  him.  The  phrase  is  an  ancient 
one,  being  found  in  the  Tel  el-Amarna  letters  (fifteenth  century 
B.  c),  and  the  commentators  quote  a  similar  phrase  from  Seneca. 
The  second  line  is  thouglit  by  some  to  refer  to  the  hopes  enter- 
tained b}'  the  people  that  they  might  escape  beyond  Jordan  into 
the  mountains  of  Moab  and  Ammon  (cf.  Jer.  xl.  ii),  and  there 
under  Zedekiah's  government  maintain  an  independent  existence. 
But  such  an  independence  would  have  been  precarious,  and  the 


344  LAMENTATIONS  4.  21,  22 

Of  whom  we  said,  Under  his  shadow  we  shall  live 

among  the  nations. 
Rejoice  and  be  glad,  O  daughter  of  Edom,  that  dwellest 

in  the  land  of  Uz  : 
The  cup  shall  pass  through  unto  thee  also  ;  thou  shalt 

be  drunken,  and  shalt  make  thyself  naked. 
^The  punishment  of  thine  iniquity  is  accomplished, 

O  daughter  of  Zion ; 
He  will  no  more  carry  thee  away  into  captivity : 
He  will  visit  thine  iniquity,  O  daughter  of  Edom ; 
He  will  discover  thy  sins. 

*  tOr,  Thine  iniquity  hath  an  end 


kingship  but  a  pale  counterpart  of  the  sovereignty  he  had  exercised. 
More  probably  the  poet  is  thinking  of  their  hope  in  former  days 
that  they  would  maintain  their  national  existence  in  their  c\vn 
land  under  Zedekiah,  though  so  much  had  been  lost  in  the  cata- 
strophe of  597  B.C.  The  Targum  refers  the  passage  to  Josiah, 
since  it  could  not  understand  terms  of  such  appreciation  applied 
to  Zedekiah.     But  this  is  forbidden  by  the  context. 

21,  22.  The  hatred  of  the  Jews  for  Edom,  caused  by  its 
exultation  over  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  finds  expression  in  several 
passages,  some  among  the  most  lurid  in  Hebrew  prophecy ;  see 
Isa.  xxxiv,  Ixiii.  i-6,  Ezek.  xxxv,  Obad.  10-15,  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7.  In 
this  passage  the  poet  bids  Edom  make  the  most  of  its  opportunity, 
for  soon  it  will  have  to  drink  of  the  same  cup  of  shameful  humili- 
ation, while  Judah  has  already  received  its  punishment.  For  the 
figure  of  the  cup  cf.  Jer.  xxv.  15 ff.,  and  for  the  close  of  21  cf. 
Hab.  ii.  15,  16. 

in  the  land  of  Uz  :  see  note  on  Jer.  xxv.  20,  also  on  Jobi.  i. 
The  LXX  omits  'Uz';  'the  land'  might  then  mean  Palestine, 
and  the  allusion  be  to  the  annexation  of  Jewish  territory  by  Edom, 
to  which  we  have  a  reference  in  Ezek.  xxxv.  10-12.  For  this  'in 
our  land '  would  be  better.  It  is  likely  on  metrical  grounds  that 
a  word  should  be  struck  out,  all  the  more  that  either  'land'  or 
'  Uz '  might  readily  have  risen  by  dittography  out  of  the  other. 
It  would  perhaps  be  best  to  read  '  in  Uz.' 

The  punishment  . .  .  accomplished.  The  margin  should  be 
substituted  ;  see  note  on  6.  Judah's  sin  belongs  to  the  past,  it  is 
over  and  done  with  (cf.  Isa.  xl.  i)  ;  Edom's  as  yet  remains  un- 
punished, but  Yahwehwill  drag  it  into  the  light  and  punish  it. 


LAMENTATIONS  5.  2  345 

Remember,  O  Lord,  what  Is  come  upon  us :  5 

Behold,  and  see  our  reproach. 

Our  inheritance  is  turned  unto  strangers,  a 

V.  1-22.     The  Fifth  Poem. 

This  poem  consists,  like  i,  ii,  and  iv,  of  twenty-two  verses,  yet  it  is 
not  alphabetic  in  its  arrangement,  though  Ball  discovers  some 
traces  of  a  lost  acrostic.  It  differs  from  its  predecessors  in  that  it 
is  not  written  in  the  Qina  rhythm.  It  is,  strictly  speaking,  a  prayer, 
but  the  greater  part  is  occupied  with  a  description  of  the  miseries 
under  which  the  people  are  suffering,  some  in  one  way  and  some 
in  another.  This  description  is  an  integral  part  of  the  prayer,  be- 
ing designed  to  appeal  to  Yahweh's  compassion  and  secure  His 
help.  The  poem  is  apparently  later  than  iiand  iv.  It  is  concerned 
not  with  the  horrors  of  the  siege,  unless  11,  12  are  to  be  so  inter- 
preted ;  but  with  the  wretched  conditions  of  those  who  are  left  in 
Palestine,  a  feeble  remnant,  deprived  of  their  ancestral  possessions, 
the  victims  of  penury,  forced  labour,  and  oppression.  A  consider- 
able period  has  elapsed  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  those 
who  were  children  at  the  time  have  now  grown  to  manhood,  and 
the  poet  speaks  in  a  way  which  implies  that  Yahweh's  apparent 
indifference  seems  to  express  a  settled  attitude,  rather  than  a  pass- 
ing cloud  of  displeasure  (20).  We  may  therefore  with  some  con- 
fidence place  the  poem  fairly  late  in  the  exilic  period.  Yet  there 
is  no  indication  of  any  change  in  the  political  situation.  It  is 
therefore  probable  that  the  career  of  Cyrus  had  not  yet  begun,  or, 
if  it  had,  that  the  author  had  no  knowledge  of  it.  He  wrote 
presumably  in  Judaea, 

The  poet  appeals  to  Yahweh  to  look  on  the  affliction  of  the 
people.  They  have  lost  their  homes,  their  fathers  are  in  exile, 
their  mothers  no  more  fortunate  than  widows.  They  are 
grievously  oppressed  and  serve  the  foreigner  for  bread.  Their 
miseries  are  due  to  the  sins  of  their  forefathers,  who  died  with 
their  guilt  unexpiated.  Upstarts  are  their  governors  ;  their  bread 
they  win  at  the  risk  of  their  lives  ;  they  are  fevered  with  famine. 
Women  are  dishonoured,  princes  hanged  up  by  the  hand.  Young 
men  carry  the  mill,  boys  stagger  under  the  firewood.  All  joy  has 
ceased;  their  crown  lies  in  the  dust.  It  is  the  penalty  of  their  sin. 
Above  all,  they  grieve  for  the  desolation  of  Zion.  But  the  throne 
of  Yahweh  abides  for  ever  ;  why  docs  He  forsake  and  forget  His 
people  for  ever?  Let  Him  bring  them  back ;  if  indeed  He  has  not 
utterly  rejected  them. 

V.  2-6.  In  these  verses  the  poet  describes  the  wretched  condi- 
tion of  those  who  had  been  deprived  of  their  ancestral  possessions 
in  the  country  districts,  and  had  therefore  to  purchase  what  had 


346  LAMENTATIONS  5.  3-6 

Our  houses  unto  aliens. 
We  are  orphans  and  fatherless, 
Our  mothers  are  as  ^^ddows. 
We  have  drunken  our  water  for  money  ; 
Our  wood  ^  is  sold  unto  us. 
Our  pursuers  are  upon  our  necks  : 
We  are  weary,  and  have  no  rest. 
We  have  given  the  hand  to  the  Egyptians, 
*Heb.  Cometh  for  price. 

been  their  own,  their  water  and  their  wood,  either  from  the  new 
possessors,  or  perhaps  by  paying  a  tax  to  the  Babylonian  governor 
(cf.  i.  11).  They  were  orphans  in  the  sense  that  their  fathers  had 
been  taken  into  exile,  so  that  while  their  mothers  were  not  hterally 
widows,  they  were  no  better  off  than  if  they  were  actually  so 
('  our  mothers  are  as  widows '). 

3.  mothers :  not  a  figurative  expression  for  the  cities  of  Judah, 
but  literally  meant,  like  all  the  expressions  in  this  passage. 
Cheyne's  emendation  'citadels'  i^arjn^notheynu)  yields  a  rather 
better  assonance,  but  at  the  expense  of  the  parallelism. 

S.  This  is  a  difficult  verse.  The  first  line  is  strangely  expressed. 
Frequently  it  has  been  rendered  *  On  our  necks  are  we  pursued  ;  • 
we  must  suppose  the  meaning  to  be,  our  pursuers  are  hard  at  our 
heels.  But  the  reference  to  pursuit  is  strange.  The  speakers 
belong  apparently  to  those  left  behind  in  the  land.  Who  should 
pursue  them  ?  We  might  think  of  them  either  as  being  chased  out 
of  the  land,  but  broken  wretches  such  as  they  were  could  hardly 
be  politically  dangerous.  Or  they  might  be  attempting  to  escape 
from  their  evil  lot,  with  pursuers  hard  after  them  to  bring  them 
back.  This  would  agree  with  6,  but  is  otherwise  difficult.  Had 
the  fugitives  been  runaway  slaves,  hot  pursuit  would  have  been 
intelligible  ;  but  this  seems  not  to  have  been  the  case.  The  refer- 
ence to  pursuit  is  accordingly  suspicious  both  in  itself  and  the  form 
in  which  it  is  expressed.  The  text  is  apparently  corrupt.  The 
word  rendered  *  upon '  is  identical,  apart  from  the  pointing,  with 
the  word  for  *  yoke.'  It  is  probable  that  originally  both  words 
stood  in  the  text,  though  we  might  simply  alter  the  pointing  and 
read  '  the  yoke  of  our  neck  '  (so  Ball),  and  that  we  should  alter  the 
verb.  What  is  required  is  some  verb  expressive  of  the  grievous 
pressure  of  the  j'oke,  and  Ball's  suggestion  '  they  made  heavy ' 
approximates  to  the  probable  original :  'The yoke  on  our  neck  they 
have  made  heavy; '  this  harmonizes  well  with  the  second  line. 
6.  The  reference  is  not  to  earlier  political  alliances  made  with 


LAMENTATIONS  5.  7-9  347 

And  to  the  Assyrians,  to  be  satisfied  with  bread. 

Our  fathers  have  sinned,  and  are  not ; 

And  we  have  borne  their  iniquities. 

Servants  rule  over  us  : 

There  is  none  to  deliver  us  out  of  their  hand. 

We  get  our  bread  with  the  peril  of  our  lives 

Egypt  and  Ass^'ria  in  the  past,  for  this  does  not  suit  the  intention 
of  their  action.  Rather  the  point  is  that  they  have  wandered  into 
these  lands  to  gain  a  livehhood  by  servitude,  which  they  could  not 
gain  at  home.  That  they  should  go  into  Egypt  was  natural ;  but 
the  mention  of  Assyria  causes  surprise,  both  on  account  of  its 
distance  and  the  fact  that  it  brought  them  nearer  the  land  of  their 
rulers,  Budde  thinks  that  originally  Edom  may  have  stood  here; 
we  should  in  that  case  explain  the  language  in  the  light  of  the  fact 
that  the  Edomites  had  pushed  into  Jewish  territory  (see  note  on 
iv.  21).  Ball,  with  comparatively  slight  changes,  eliminates  the 
names  of  peoples  ;  but  also  inverts  the  order  of  5  and  6.  He 
renders : 

'To  adversaries  we  submitted.      Saying  we  shall  be  satisfied 
with  bread. 

The  j'oke  of  our  neck  they  made  heavy,     We  toil,  and  no  rest  is 
allowed  us.' 

A  rather  more  radical  revision,  though  the  emendations  suggested 
are  still  comparatively'  slight,  is  proposed  by  Cheyne  for  the  whole 
passage  6-io  {Enc.  Bib.  2700).  The  introduction  of  the  'Ishmael- 
ites'  is  textually  more  difficult  than  that  of  the  'Arabians  ;  *  and 
the  reconstruction  is  bound  up  to  some  extent,  though  not  vitall}', 
with  the  author's  '  North  Arabian  theory.'  This  verse  he  renders  : 
'We  have  surrendered  to  the  Misrites, 
We  have  become  subject  to  the  Ishmaelites.' 

*7.  See  the  discussion  in  the  note  on  Jer.  xxxi.  29,  The  poet, 
however,  does  not  deny  that  the  sufferers  had  participated  in  the 
sin  (16);  yet  he  traces  the  punishment  primarily  to  the  sins  of  the 
fathers,  who  had  died  and  thus  passed  beyond  the  reach  of  punish- 
ment before  their  sin  had  received  its  due  penalty.  The  penalty 
had  therefore  to  be  exacted  from  their  successors. 

8.  By  'servants'  or  'slaves'  the  poet  means  probabl}'  some  of 
the  minor  officials,  who  ma}'  have  been  formerly  slaves.  Oettli 
compares  the  case  of  'Tobiah  the  servant'  (Neh.  ii.  ro,  19). 
Cheyne  reads  '  Arabians  '  {'drabtm  for  ^abadJm). 

9.  The  general  sense  is  plain  :  they  cam  their  living  at  the 
risk  of  death  from  the  Bedawin.  But  it  is  not  clear  whether  the 
precise  point  is  that  they  get  in  such  harvests  as  they  are  able  to 


348  LAMENTATIONS  5.  10-12 

Because  of  the  sword  of  the  wilderness. 

10  Our  skin  is  ^  black  like  an  oven 
Because  of  the  burning  heat  of  famine. 

11  They  ravished  the  women  in  Zion, 
The  maidens  in  the  cities  of  Judah. 

12  Princes  were  hanged  up  by  their  hand  : 

"  tOr,  hot 


raise,  or  that  they  tend  the  flocks  and  herds  entrusted  to  them,  in 
either  case  in  peril  of  a  sudden  raid  by  the  robbers  from  the  desert. 
In  favour  of  the  former  are  the  words  *  we  bring  in  our  bread  '  (so 
hterally),  *  bread  '  being  used  in  the  sense  of  '  corn  ; '  in  favour  of 
the  latter  the  fact  that  they  apparently  had  no  lands  of  their  own 
to  cultivate. 

the  sword  of  the  wilderness.  The  phrase  has  no  parallel  in  the 
Old  Testament,  Various  emendations  have  been  suggested  ;  the 
best  is  probably  Cheyne's  *  Arabian  '  for  'sword,'  which  involves  a 
change  of  one  consonant.     He  renders  : 

'  We  bring  in  our  corn  with  peril  of  our  lives 

Because  of  the  Arabian  of  the  desert.' 
{Enc.  Bib.  2700).  We  may  compare  Jer.  iii.  2. 

10.  The  hunger  from  which  they  suffer  brings  on  a  raging  fever. 
Cheyne's  emendation  of  this  verse  gives  a  good  sense,  but  requires 
too  much  change  in  the  text. 

11,  12.  It  is  very  hard  to  believe  that  the  reference  is  to  any- 
thing but  the  outrages  which  commonly  accompany  the  capture  of 
a  city,  when  the  soldiery  have  licence  to  satiate  their  lust  and  their 
greed.  It  is  possible  that  the  poet  has  in  mind  indignities  and 
tortures  inflicted  on  the  hapless  remnant  in  Palestine.  But  the 
reference  to  'princes'  does  not  favour  this.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
sudden  transition  from  the  situation  hitherto  described,  to  the  in- 
cidents  which  attended  the  sack  of  the  city  is  violent  ;  and  Budde 
believes  on  this  ground  that  these  verses  originally  formed  no  part 
of  the  poem. 

hanged  up  by  their  hand.  If  the  pronoun  refers  to  the  enemy, 
whose  misdeeds  are  mentioned  in  11,  the  sense  may  be  that  they 
impaled  the  princes  ;  whether  before  or  after  death  is  uncertain. 
It  is  possible  also  to  take  the  pronoun  as  referring  to  the  princes ; 
the  meaning  being  that  they  were  hung  up  by  the  hand.  Such  a 
form  of  torture  was  by  no  means  uncommon  ;  we  may  compare 
with  it  the  hanging  up  by  the  thumbs,  familiar  in  sea-stories, 
especially  stories  of  pirates.  The  present  writer  inclines  to  this 
view  ;  and  suspects  that  this  form   of  torture    may    have   been 


LAMENTATIONS  5.  i3-i(>  349 

The  faces  of  elders  were  not  honoured. 

The  young  men  bare  the  mill,  ^3 

And  the  children  stumbled  under  the  wood. 

The  elders  have  ceased  from  the  gate,  H 

The  young  men  from  their  music. 

The  joy  of  our  heart  is  ceased ;  15 

Our  dance  is  turned  into  mourning. 

The  crown  is  fallen  from  our  head :  16 

Woe  unto  us  !  for  we  have  sinned. 

For  this  our  heart  is  faint ;  17 

For  these  things  our  eyes  are  dim ; 

For  the  mountain  of  Zion,  which  is  desolate ;  18 

The  ^  foxes  walk  upon  it. 

Thou,  0  Lord,  ^  abidest  for  ever ;  19 

Thy  throne  is  from  generation  to  generation. 

^  JiOr,  jackals  ^  Or,  siiiesl  as  king 


applied  to  princes  to  force  them  to  disclose  where  their  wealth 
was  concealed. 

elders :  cf.  iv.  16. 

13.  The  young  men  have  to  carry  about  the  heavy  millstones, 
while  the  lads  stagger  under  the  load  of  firewood  they  are  forced 
to  bear.  Ball  reads  'Nobles  endured  to  grind  and  princes 
stumbled  under  logs.' 

14.  See  notes  on  ii.  10. 

16.  The  crown:  i.e.  in  a  figurative  sense,  our  glory  and  pros- 
perity. 

17.  The  R.V.  by  its  punctuation  takes  the  reference  in  '  For 
this'  and  'For  these  things'  to  be  to  the  desolation  of  Zion  men- 
tioned in  1 8  as  the  climax  of  Judah's  woes.  This  view  is  probably 
correct ;  though  some  considerations  favour  a  reference  to  what  has 
gone  before. 

18.  That  the  Temple  mount  has  become  the  haunt  of  jackals 
shows  that  we  are  some  time  removed  from  its  destruction. 

19.  Now  the  poet  resumes  the  plea  with  God,  with  which  the 
poem  opens.  While  Yahwch's  earthly  home,  where  He  sat 
enthroned  on  the  cherubim,  is  destroyed,  He  lives  above  the  reach 
of  change,  and  His  heavenly  throne  abides  throughout  the  genera- 
tions. 


350  LAMENTATIONS  5.  20-22 

Wherefore  dost  thou  forget  us  for  ever, 

And  forsake  us  so  long  time  ? 

Turn  thou  us  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  and  we  shall  be 

turned ; 
Renew  our  days  as  of  old. 
^  But  thou  hast  utterly  rejected  us, 
Thou  art  very  wroth  against  us. 

*  tOr,  Unless  thou  .  .  .  and  art  &c. 

20.  Seeing  then  the  permanence  of  His  dominion,  why  should 
He  forget  His  people,  when  He  could  without  effort  restore  them  ? 

21.  See  note  on  Jer.  xxxi.  18;  but  here  the  language  seems  to 
be  meant  in  a  spiritual  sense. 

22.  The  meaning  is  probably  more  correctly  given  in  the  margin. 
The  poet's  tone  is  more  tentative  than  the  R.V.  text  suggests  ;  he 
means  God  surely  will  not  entirely  reject  His  people,  and  for  ever 
maintain  His  alienation  from  them.  In  the  synagogues,  it  is  true, 
21  was  repeated  after  22,  that  the  reading  might  not  end  on  the  sad 
note  of  22.  A  similar  custom  prevailed,  with  better  reason,  in 
Isaiah,  Malachi,  and  Ecclesiastes. 


INDEX 


Abaddon,  335. 

Abarim,  229. 

Abdeel,  159. 

Abner,  48. 

Abu  Ghosh,  36. 

Abraham,  29,  135,  143. 

Achan,  11,  100. 

Achbor,  37  f.,  155. 

Acrostic,  289  f.,  296.  332,  345. 

Adeney,  297. 

Admah,  247. 

Agag,  II. 

Agriculture,  144  f. 

Ahab,  King  of  Israel,  148,  318. 

—  Prophet,  55,  62  f. 

Ahikam,   27,  29,  35,   38,    155, 

178  f.,  182,  184,  189. 
Ai,  240  f. 

Alexander  the  Great,  220,  223. 
Almon-Diblathaim,  233. 
Amalek,  11. 
Amasa,  48. 

Amasis,  201,  208,  220  f. 
Amaziah,  100. 
Ammon,  16,  18,   183,  185,  187, 

189,  230,   239-42,  285,    302, 

343- 
Ammon,  King  of  the  children  of, 

42. 
Ammonites,  82,  187. 
Amon,  222. 
Amorites,  228. 
Amos,  22,  73,  no, 
Anakim,  226. 

Anathoth,  67,  11 1-3,  ii5f. 
Antediluvians,  328. 
Anthropomorphism,  28,  94. 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  307. 
Apis,  219. 
Apocalyptic,  5,  20  f.,  24. 


Apries,  208. 

Aquila,  191,  261. 

Ar  of  Moab,  228  f.,  233,  241. 

Arab,  Arabian,  19,  242,  250  f., 

263,  347  f- 
Arabah,  97,  176  f,,  282. 
Arabia,  16,  19,  225. 
Arabic  Version,  314. 
Aram,  18. 

Aramaic  papyri,  202. 
Ararat,  271. 
Araunah,  116. 
Ark,  82,  314,317. 
Armenia,  271. 
Aroer,  227,  229  f.,  232  f. 
Arpad,  248  f. 
Asa,  182,  187,  189. 
Asahel,  169. 
Ashdod,  17  f.,  225  f. 
Ashkelon,  17,  225  f. 
Ashkenaz,  271. 
Assyrian,    Assyrians,   79,   117, 

259  f.,  262,  266,  270,  347. 
Atbash,  20  f.,  264. 
Athaliah,  66. 
Azariah,  192,  195. 
Azekah,  136,  138. 
Azriel,  159. 
Azzur,  48. 

Baal,    Baalim,  Baalism,   123  f., 

145,  148. 
Baal  of  Tyre,  148. 
Baalis,  183,  185. 
Baasha,  189. 
Babel,   Babylon,    3,    6,    12-15, 

37-47,  113,  et passim. 
Babylonia,  55,  57-9,  61,  117. 
Babylonians,    46,    56,   61,    63, 

224. 


352 


JEREMIAH 


Ball,  C.  J.,  289,  297,  309,312 f., 
324,  329,  331,  339  f-,  345-7, 
349- 

Ban,  II,  261. 

Barnes,  W.  E.,  268. 

Baruch,  14,  33,  35  f.,  39  f.,  ct 
passim. 

Bashan,  260. 

Bedawin,  251,  263,  347. 

Bel,  255,  275. 

Belshazzar,  43. 

Ben-hadad,  249  f. 

Benjamin,  302. 

—  Gate  of,  164,  168  f. 

—  Land  of,  91,  115  f.,  127,  133, 
163  f. 

Benjamin  of  Tudela,  150. 
Bennett,  148. 
Beth-baal-meon,  233. 
Beth-diblathaim,  233  f. 
Beth-gamul,  233  f. 
Beth-meon,  233  f. 
Beth-shemesh,  198,  200. 
Bethel,  91,  231  f. 
Bethlehem,  91  f.,  187,  191. 
Bezer,  233. 
Bickell,    307,    310,    314,   318, 

337  f. 
Bildad,  308. 
Bleeker,  10. 
Blood-licking,  143. 
Boaz,  115. 
Bochart,  263. 

Book  of  the  Covenant,  141. 
Book  of  the  Law,  37  f.,  154  f., 

159,  201. 
Bozrah  (in  Edom),  243  f.,  248. 

—  (in  Moab),  233  f. 

Budde,  173,  212,  254,  271,  278, 
290 f., 296 f.,  302, 305 f.,  308 f., 
311,  316-8,  320,  325  f.,  329, 

337  f.,  341,  347  f. 
Bulmerincq,  108. 
Busaireh,  245. 
Buz,  16, 18. 

Cain,  342. 


Cairo,  201. 

Calf  cut  in  twain,  140,  142  f. 

Canaan,  80,  119,  123,  132,  144. 

Canaanites,  11,  144. 

Cankerworm,  269,  272. 

Caphtor,  225. 

Captivity,  105. 

Carchemish,  3,  5-7,  17,  213-5, 

223. 
Carians,  221. 
Carmel,  220,  260. 
Casdim,  Kasdim,  264  f. 
Chaboras,  215. 
Chaldeans,  6,15,  112-4,  121-3, 

et  passim. 
Chemosh,  227,  230  f.,  239  f. 
Cherethites,  225. 
Cheyne,  17  f.,  48,  54,  86,  95, 97, 

102,  no,  146,  228  f,  235,  263, 

272,  297,  301,  307,  309,  313, 

315-7,  323,    329,   331,    333, 

337,  339,  342,  346-8. 
Christianity,  84. 
Chronicles,  292, 
Chuzistan,  252. 
Circesium,  215. 
Cities  of  the  South,  127,  133. 
Cleopatra's  Needle,  201. 
Coastland,  18,  88. 
Cobb,  291. 
Coele-Syria,  285. 
Condamin,  151,  154,  291. 
Coniah,  161. 
Cook,  S.  A.,  246. 
Cornill,  4-6,  8f.,  n  f.,  et  passim. 
Court  of  the  Guard,  112-5,  118. 

166-71,  175. 
Covenant,  103  f.,  139-43. 
Creation  passages,  129, 
Creator,  129. 
Crete,  225. 

Curse,  Cursing,  17,  29,  62  f. 
Cush,  217. 
Cushi,  156. 
Cushite,  156. 
Cyrene,  208,  221. 
Cyrus,  87,  252,  255,  345. 


INDEX 


353 


Damascus,  248-50. 

Darius,  277. 

David,  61,  71,  74,   78,  83,   100, 

127  f.,  131,  133-5. 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  48,  212,  294. 
Day  of  Yahweh,  24,  73. 
De  Hoop  Schefter,  316. 
Dc  Wette,  68. 
Dead   Sea,  228  f.,  232  f.,  235-7, 

245>  247. 
Decalogue,  103,  120. 
Dedan,  Dedanites,  18,  243  f. 
Deed  of  Sale,  112,  117-9,  lai. 
Delaiah,  155,  159. 
Delitzsch,  82  f.,  91. 
Demetrius,  223. 
Deuteronomic  Law,  28, 100, 143, 

340. 
Deuteronomic        Reformation, 

202. 
Deuteronomy,  89,  102  f.,  140 f. 
Dibon,  227  f.,  232  f. 
Diodorus  Siculus,  148. 
Dies  Jrae,  73. 
Dillmann,  91. 
Dispersion,  88. 
Dragon,  273. 
Driver,  60,  64,  73,  75  f.,  90,  93, 

108,  114,  118, 158,  219  f.,  231, 

235.  242,  246,  278. 
Dschirbas,  215. 

Duhm,  9f.,  12  f.,  15 f.,  et passim. 
Dungeon,  165-70,  335. 
Dyserinck,  311,  316  f. 

Ebed-melech,  167-70,  179,  190. 

Ecclesiastes,  350. 

Edom,   16-19,   23,   185,  242-8, 

264,  302,  337,  344,  347. 
—  King  of,  42. 
Edomites,  251. 
Eglaim,  229. 

Eglath-Shelishiyah,  236  f. 
E&ypt,  3,  7.  16,  36  f.,  et  passim. 
Eichhorn,  254. 
Ekron,  17  f.,  225  f. 
Elam,  20,  252  {.,  260 


Elasah,  56. 

Elders  of  the  land,  32. 

Elealch,  236  f. 

Eleutheropolis,  33. 

Elihu,  19. 

Eliphaz,  19,  244. 

Elishama,  155,  158. 

El-Jib,  48,  189. 

El-nathan,  36  f.,  155,  159. 

Encyclopaedia    JSiblica,    17,    19, 

37,  &c. 
Entry,  The  third,  171  f. 
Ephraim,  69-71,  81,  85-8,  91-4, 

97  f.,  260. 
Ephraimites,  84  f.,  98. 
Ephrath,  91  f. 
Erbt,  16,  69,  80,  149,  159,  180, 

193>  i97j  207,  209,  212,  219, 

223,  250  f. 
Esau,  244. 

Eschatology,  5,  19,  22,  73,  79. 
Ethiopia,  40,  156,  217. 
Ethiopian,  156,  170. 
Euphrates,  213-6,  218,  268,  274, 

278-80. 
Eusebius,  233. 
Evil-Merodach,  43,  285. 
Ewald,  59,  96,  129,  323,  325. 
Exile,  Duration  of,  12-15,  21. 
Exiles,  49  f.,  54-68,254. 
Exodus,  The,  80  f.,  104  f.,  119- 

21,  132 
Extradition,  36f.,  155. 
Ezekiel,   16,  33,    88,   99,    loi, 

i23f.,  136,  250  6,  271,  295f., 

313,  319- 

Findlay,  119. 
Firstborn,  87  f. 
Folly,  Fool,  64,  87. 
Frazer,  314. 

Gad,  240. 
Gall,  Von,  200. 
Gareb,  no. 
Gargamish,  215. 
Gath,  18,  225  f. 
Gaza,  17,  223-6. 


A  a 


354 


JEREMIAH 


Gedaliah,  the  Governor,  38, 147. 

155,    167,  176,    X78-91,    197. 

205,  284. 
Gedaliah  ben  Pashhur,  166  f. 
Gemariah  ben  Hilkiah,  57, 
Gemariah  ben  Shaphan,   56  f,, 

147,  155  f-,  159. 
Gerlach,  297. 
Geruth  Chimham,  190. 
Gibeon,    Gibeonites,    48,    100, 

i89f. 
Gibeon,  Pool  of,  182,  190. 
Giesebrecht,  6,  16,  et  passim, 
Gilead,  218,  239,  260. 
Gillies,  108,  112,  198,  209,  223. 
Goah,  no. 
Go'el,  115. 
Gomer,  19  f. 
Gomorrah,  247. 
Gospel,  106. 
Gospels,  73. 

Graeco-Persian  War,  70,  102. 
Graetz,  24,  272. 
Graf,   13,    15,  39,   56,  66,  68, 

70,87,  108,   III,  128  f.,  137, 

148,  152,  198,  226,  240,  254, 
262,  265,  272,  278. 

Gray,  G.  B.,  37,  243. 
Greenup,  297, 

Habakkuk,  213. 

Habazziniah.   147. 

Ham,  217, 

Hamath,  178,  248  f.,  282,  284. 

Hammurabi,  Code  of,  63. 

Hamutal,  281. 

Hanan,  147. 

Hanamel,  111-3,  115-8,  167. 

Hananel,  no. 

Hananiah,  38,  40-2,  48-54,  67. 

Hannibal,  116. 

Hastings,  242 f.,  245,  291,  297. 

Haupt,  P.,  172,  262. 

Hazor,  250-2. 

Hegesippus,  150. 

Heliopolis,  200  f. 

Herod,  91. 


Herodotus,  208,  221,  223,  274, 

277. 
Hesban,  228. 
Heshbon,    228  f.,   233,     236  f., 

239-41. 
Hezekiah,  33  f.,  156,  161, 
Hildebrand,  231. 
Hilkiah,  57,  155. 
Hinnom,  Valley  of,  no,  124. 
Hitzig,  13,  15,  43,  53,  56,  68, 

87,  108,   128,   137,  156,  190, 

220,  223,  226,  255,  275. 
Holon,  233  f. 
Horonaim,  229,  236  f 
Horton,  R.  F.,  243. 
Hosannah,  86. 
Hosea,  33,  80  f. 
Hoshaiah,  192,  195. 
Huldah,  37  f. 
Hyrcanus,  John,  227. 

Igdaliah,  147. 

Individual  Responsibility,  loi. 
lonians,  221. 
Irijah,  163-5. 
Isaac,  135. 

Isaiah,  32-4,  48,  340,  350. 
Ishmael,  182-4,  186-91. 
Ishmaelites,  18,  347. 
Ishtar,  205. 

Israel,   Israelites,   10  f.,   68-75, 
80-2,  86-9,  et  passim. 

Jaazaniah,  147, 

Jackal,  274,  338. 

Jacob,    70  f.,   74  f,  78,  85,   89, 

135. 
Jacob's  pillar,  231. 
Jahzah,  233  f. 
James,  150. 
Jazer,  235  f. 
Jebel  Atarus,  228. 
Jeconiah,  41,  45,  47,  49,  55  f. 
Jehoahaz,  7,  205,  217. 
Jehoiachin,46,5o,  114, 136,159, 

205,  252,  254,  285. 
Jehoiada,-65f. 


INDEX 


355 


Jchoiakim,   3-7,  14,   35-9,   42, 

ct  passim. 
Jehu,  144,  148. 
Jehucal,  jucal,  161  f.,  167. 
Jchudi,  151,  156,  158. 
Jephthah,  82. 
Jerahmeel,  159. 
Jeremiah  of  Libnah,  281. 
Jeremiah  the  Rechabite,  147. 
Jeremias,  117. 
Jericho,  Plains  of,  176. 
Jeroboam,  36. 
Jesus,  106. 
Jezaniah,  184,  192, 
Joash,  66. 

Johanan,  183-91,  193,  195  f. 
Johns,  117,  119. 
Jonadab,  144-50. 
Jonah,  10,  213.  275. 
Jonathan  ben  Kareah,  184. 
Jonathan  the  Maccabee,  18, 
Jonathan  the  scribe,  165,  171. 
Jordan,  228,  264. 

—  Valley,  229. 
Joseph,  91,  302. 
Josephus,  191,  285. 
Joshua,  48,  100. 

Josiah,  5-8,  37,  39,    107,   145, 
153  f-j  159)  205,  217, 292,  344. 
Jotham,  30. 
Judah,  3-5,  10,  12,  et passiyn. 

—  Prophets  of,  39. 

Judas  Maccabaeus,  18,  260. 
Judeans,  70. 

Kadytis,  223. 

Kareah,  184-6, 189^,  192  f.,  196. 

Kautzsch,  95,  176. 

Kedar,  250  f. 

Kenites,  144. 

Kent,  75,  77,  84,  108,  112. 

Kerak,  235. 

Kcrioth,  233  f..  238. 

Kcturah,  19. 

Khirbet'Erma,  36. 

Kidron,  37.  ni. 

Kir  of  Moab,  235. 


Kir-hcrcs,  228,  235. 

Kiriathaim,  227  f.,  234. 

Kiriath-jcarim,  36. 

Kittcl,  95. 

Klostennann,  in. 

Kobcrle,    108,    167,  209,   212, 

227,  248,  250,  252. 
Koliah,  62  f. 
KOnig,  108. 
Krochmal,  226,  320. 
Kuenen,  43,  212,  226,  254. 
Kureyat,  228. 

Lachish,  136,  138. 

Lagarde,  219. 

Lake  Urumia,  271. 

Lake  Van,  271. 

Lamp,  1 1  f. 

Law,  io2f.,  138,  146,  318 f. 

—  of  Holiness,  63. 

Leb-kamai,  264  f. 

Levites,  127 f.,  i33f. 

Lofthouse,  270. 

Lohr,  291,  294,  296  f,,  301  f., 
307  f.,  312,  314-6,  322,  325-7, 
329  f.,  334,  337,  341  f. 

Lucian,  42,  60  f. 

Ludim,  217. 

Luhith,  229. 

Libyans,  217. 

Lydians,  217. 

Maaseiah,  63,  65,  147,  153,  162, 

192. 
Macalister,  R.  A.  S.,  245. 
Maccabees,  146. 
Madmen,  228. 
Magdolos,  223. 
Mahseiah,  118,  279. 
Ma  in,  233. 
Malachi,  243,  350. 
Malcam,  240  f. 
Malchiah,  167  f. 
Malchijah,  146. 
Marduk,  255. 
Mareshah,  33. 
Martel,  Cliarlc^,  260. 


356 


JEREMIAH 


Marti,  102,  242. 

Mat  Marratim,  260. 

Medeba,  233. 

Medes,  256,  268. 

Mediterranean,  88. 

Megiddo,  223. 

Meinhold,  320. 

Melkart,  148. 

Memphis,  220, 

Mephaath,  233  f. 

Merathaim,  260. 

Merodach,  255. 

Mesha,  232. 

Messiah,  73,  96,  133. 

Micah,  Micaiah,  32-5,  340. 

Micaiah,  42,  44,  49. 

Micaiah    ben    Gemariah,    151, 

155  f. 
Michaelis,  330. 
Michal,  82. 
Midian,  36. 
Midrash,  197. 
Migdol,  203,  218. 
Milcora,  230,  240. 
Mill,  II  f.,  345,  349- 
Mingled  People,  16  f.,  19. 
Minni,  271. 
Miriam,  82. 
Misgab,  228. 
Misrites,  347. 
Mizpah,  48,  180,  182-90. 
Moab,    16,    185,    226-39,     240, 

242,  254,  285,  343. 
—  King  of,  42. 
Moabite  Stone,  228,  330,  232  f., 

235- 
Molech,  113,  124. 
Morashtite,  34. 
Moresheth-gath,  33. 
Moses,  144,  150. 
Moulton,  W.  J.,  102. 
Mourning  customs,  173  f. 
Movers,  43,  68,   loi,  108,   128, 

226,  255. 

Nabataeans,  148,  247,  250. 
Nabopolassar,  7,  215. 


Nagelsbach,  294,  297. 
Naharina,  18. 
Nahum,  213. 
Nazirites,  339. 
Nebo,  227  f.,  233  f. 

—  Mount,  228. 
Nebuchadnezzar,  3,  6f,,  10, 13, 

39-41,  43  f.,  et  passim. 
Nebushazban,  177  f. 
Nebuzaradan,9i,i76, 178,  i8of., 

185,  189,  197,  282-5. 
Neby  Samwil,  48. 
Negeb,  97. 

Nehelamite,  64  f.,  67  f. 
Nehemiah,  18,  133. 
Nehushta,  37,  56. 
Nergal-sharezer,  177  f. 
Neriah,  ii8f.,  153 f.,  156,  160, 

279. 
Nethaniah,  156,  184,  188-91. 
Neumann,  297. 
New  Covenant,  69  f.,   72,  99, 

101-9. 
New  Gate,  30. 
Nile,  215  f.,  268,  274. 
Nimrim,  228. 

—  Waters  of,  236  f. 
Nitocris,  274. 
No-amon,  222,  268. 
Nob,  100. 
Noldeke,  91,  337. 
Nomad  life,  144-6,  148. 
Noph,  203,  2x8,  220. 

North  Arabian  Theory,  97,  347- 
Northern  Kingdom,  47,  81,  187. 
Nowack,  242. 

Obadiah,  242-6. 

Obed-Edom,  246. 

Ochus,  252. 

Oettli,  297,  347. 

Old  Covenant,  104,  106  f. 

Olivet,  no. 

Oracles   on    the  Nations,  3-6, 

212  f. 
Orelli,  13,  36,  75,  91,  108.,  212, 

254. 


INDEX 


357 


Orontes,  249. 
Osiris,  219. 
Ostrich,  338. 

Palestine,  40,  54,  61,  69,  72,  8i, 
86,  89,  93,  95,  99,  126,  181, 
224. 

Pashhur,  66  f. 

Pashhur  ben  Malchiah,  167. 

Pathros,  202  f.,  205. 

Peiser,  20. 

Pekod,  260, 

Penknife,  159. 

Pentateuch,  78,  82. 

Persians,  252,  256. 

Petra,  245,  247. 

Petrie,  199. 

Pharaoh,  3,  6,  21,  36,  40,  82. 

Pharaoh  Hophra,  162,  202,  208, 
214,  219,  223. 

Pharaoh  Necho,  213,  215,  223. 

Pharaoh's  house,  197-9. 

Philistia,  16,  223. 

Phihstines,  17  f.,  223-6. 

Phoenicia,  i8,  223  f.,  226. 

Phoenicians,  224. 

Pierotti,  150. 

Pompey,  307. 

Praetorius,  327. 

Priestly  Legislation,  78,  133, 

Prison,  113,  163  6. 

Psammetichus,  40. 

Ptolemy,  223. 

Pukudu,  260. 

Punt,  217. 

Put,  217. 

Qaryet  el-'Enab,  36. 
Qina  rhythm,  104,  290  f.,  345. 
Qinoth,  289. 

Quartermaster,  278,  280. 
Queen-Mother,  see  Nehushta. 
Queenof  Heaven,  201-3, 205-7. 

Rabbah,  240  f. 
Rabbath-Ammon,  236. 
Rabbath-Moab,  229. 
Rab-mag,  177  f. 


Rab-saris,  177  f. 

Rachel,  71,  91  f.,  302. 

Rachel's  grave,  91  f. 

Raisin  cakes,  235. 

Ramah,  90-2,  180  f, 

Ramsay,  83. 

Rechab,  145  f.,  148-50. 

Rechabim,  150. 

Rechabites,  144-50,  153. 

Red  Sea,  248,  264. 

Rehoboam,  80. 

Reuben,  87. 

Reuss,  209. 

Revelation  of  John,  12. 

Riblah,  65,  176,  178,  282,  284, 

305. 
Right  of   Redemption,    m  f., 

115- 
Robinson,  36. 
Roll  of  Jeremiah's  prophecies, 

14,  36  f.,  56,  72,  147,  151-60, 

209-11. 
Rome,  Romans,  12,  19. 
Rost,  20. 
Rothstein,  14,  16,  34,  et passim. 

Sabbath,  146. 

Sagur,  215. 

Salem,  i88. 

Samaria,  71,  83,  86,  188,  318, 

324- 
Samaritans,  98. 
Samgar-Nebo,  177. 
Samuel,  150. 
Sar,  236. 
Sarfa,  229, 
Sarsechim,  177. 
Satan,  332. 
Saul,  II,  66,  100. 
Schleusner,  327. 
Schmidt,    N.,    40,    54,    70,   97, 

102,  112,  127,  145,  166,  176, 

179,  182,  191,  220,  223,  227, 

251  f. 
Schv^ally,    4f.,     10,     14,    209, 

212  f.,  218,  245. 
Scott,  148. 


358 


JEREMIAH 


Scythians,  24,  256. 

Second  Isaiah,  22,  68,  70,  75, 

85,  87-9,  loi,  106,  108. 
Sela,  247. 

Selbie,  J.  A.,  242,  297. 
Seneca,  343. 

Sennacherib,  33,  138,  340, 
Septuagint,  3f.,  7-10,  et passim. 
Seraiah  ben  Azriel,  159. 
Seraiah  ben  Neriah,  153, 278-81. 
Seraiah  ben  Tanhumeth,  184. 
Seraiah  the  priest,  65. 
Servant   of  Yahweh,  75,   326, 

331. 
Shallum,  father  of  Hanamel,ii5. 

—  father  of  Maaseiah,  147. 
Shaphan,  37  f.,  56  f.,  155  f, 
Shechem,  188. 
Shelemiah  ben  Abdeel,  159. 

—  ben  Cushi,  156. 

—  father  of  Jucal,  167. 
Shemaiah,  father  of  Delaiah,i55. 

—  father  of  Uriah,  36. 

—  the  Nehelamite,  55,  64-8. 
Sheol,  313,  328. 
Shephatiah,  166. 
Sheshach,  20,  274, 

Shiloh,  26,  28,  3of.,  82,  84,  188. 

Sibmah,  236. 

Sidon,  224  f. 

Sievers,  291. 

Sihon,  228,  233,  239. 

Sinai,  Sinaitic  Covenant,  103  f. 

Skinner,  177,  281,  283  f. 

Slaves,  Hebrew,  138-44. 

Smend,  68  f.,  loi  f. 

Smith,  G.  A.,    229,   242,    246, 

313. 
Smith,  Payne,  297. 

—  W.  R.,  48. 
Sodom,  60,  247,  337-9. 
Sohdarity,  Doctrine  of,  100  f, 
Solomon,  36,  48,  78,  131,  283. 
Stade,    45,  68,    loi,   iii,    119, 

152,  212. 
Stephen,  29,  31. 
Streane,  297,  315. 


Stretton,  236. 
Susiana,  252. 
Swinburne,  301. 
Symmachus,  195. 
Sympathetic  magic,  279, 
Syria,  Syrians,  42, 144, 146, 149, 

249. 
Syriac  Version,  27,  34,  58,  65  f., 

105,    115-8,    147,    194,    199, 

206,   228,    265,    273  f.,    314, 

320,  330- 

Taboo,  83. 

Tabor,  215,  220. 

Tabret,  82. 

Tahpanhes,   191,  196-9,  202  f., 

218. 
Taniar,  63. 
Tammuz,  275. 
Targum,  25,  66,  195,  297,  302, 

330,  344. 
Teima,  18. 
Teispes,  252. 

Tel  el-Amarna  letters,  343. 
Tel  el-Hesy,  138. 
Tel-Erfad,  249. 
Tema,  16,  18. 
Teman,  243 f.,  248. 
Temple,  33  f.,  41,  47,  et  passim, 

—  officers,  65  f. 

—  vessels,  41,  45-9. 
Ten  tribes,  259. 
Thebes,  222. 
Thenius,  297. 
Thomson,  189. 
Tigris,  252. 
Tobiah,  347. 
Torah,  319. 
Trumbull,  147. 
Tudela,  150. 
Tyre,  18,  224  f. 
Tyre,  King  of,  42. 

Uriah,  27,  35-7,  155,  157,  341- 
Uz,  16-19,  344. 

Vineyards,  83. 


INDEX 


359 


Vulgate,  34,  51,  58,  66,  194  f. 
198  f.,  228,  265,  289. 

VVady  Kerak,  229. 
Wady  Numeirah,  237. 
Wailing  women,  173  f. 
VVellhausen,  212,  242  f. 
Western  Asia,  3. 
Whitehouse,  235. 
Wiedemann,  208. 
Winckler,  250  f. 
Wine  cup,  Vision  of,  4-7,  15- 
22,  266. 


Xerxes,  70. 

Year  of  Jubilee,  140. 

Zeboim,  247. 

Zechariah,  13. 

Zedekiah,  3,  5  f.,  13 f.,  ct passim, 

Zephaniah  the  priest,  55, 64-7, 

147,  162,  284. 
—  the  prophet,  73,  156, 
Zidon,  King  of,  42. 
Zimri,  16,  19. 

Zion,  34,  71,  76-8,  et passim. 
Zoar,  229,  236  f. 


OXFORD  :     HORACE    HART 
PRINTER    TO    THE    UNIVERSITY 


Overnigl 


Date  Due^"^f"'«>^* 


M) 


fizemle!it 


(Ku^s-h) 


VG'^Jt:', 


Bsaoyvo 


Orefntghr^^^^gfyg 


Overnigh 


RESERVf 


^pViMM^M^^JgJI^ 


RESER^ 


^:^'(*;■^^^**■'^*' 


